Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-09'. • ·II BOARDS O F DH1 ECTO RS County Sanitati on Di stricts P. 0. Box ~ll'l!ic 8127 10844 Ellis Aven ue Fountain Valley, Ca liF., 927013 of Orange Co unty, Calif ornia (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) . (10) (11) (12) (1 3) DIST RICT No. AGENDA September 24, 1968 -4 :30 p.m . Ro ll Call Appointments of Chairme n prp tern, if necessary Report of the General Manager Rep ort of the General Couns e l DISTRICT 1 Consid eration of action rega rding award o f contract for Enclosures, Phase II, and Operators' Building, J ob No . P2-8-3 . (The Board may wish to rec ess to di scuss matter with Building Co mmittee) DISTRIC TS 1 Al~D 7 Consid eration of Resolution No . 68-79, approving and authori zing execution of a Temporary Accommodation Agreement between the Dist ric t s (Warner Bypass Agree - ment), whereby District No . 7 may discharge sewage and industria l waste effluent in to District l's Grand Avenue Sew er in Wa rne r Avenue . See page 11 A" (S ee page "B" for Ag r eement ) DIS TRICT 7 Consi deration of motion accepting proposal of Boyle Engine ering, for preparation of plans and specifications for the Warner Bypass Fac ili t i e s to connect to District No . l's Grand Av enue Sewer . See page "C" DIS TRICT 7 Discussion concerning the necessity of a Master Plan Study for the District , prio r to the fixing of ultimate joint outfall facilities requirements for Districts 1 and 7 DIS TRICT 7 Consi deration of a resolution establishing the District 's Annexati on -Fee Policy and Procedures. See page "D" DISTRIC T 7 Con sideration of Resolution No . 68-81-7 , approving plans and specifications for the Sma lley Road Subtrunk Sewer , Contract No . 7-lG-A, and authorizing advertising for bid s to be opened by the engineer and staff on October 11; and authorizing award of contract . See page "E" DISTRICTS 1 AND 7 Oth er business and communications DISTRICT 1 Consid eration of motion to adjourn DISTRICT 7 Consid e ro.tjon of motion to adjourn RESOLUTION NO. 68-79 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION AGREEMENT WARNER BYPASS AGREEMENT A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1 AND 7, OF ORANGE.COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A TEMPORARY ACCOMMODA- TION AGREEMENT (WARNER BYPASS AGREEMENT) The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts • Nos. 1 and 7, of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain agreement dated September 24, 1968, by and between County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1 and 7, entitled "Temporary Accommodation Agreement (Warner Bypass Agreement)" is hereby approved; and, Section 2. That the Chairmen and Secretary ·of County Sanitation Districts Nos. l and 7 are authorized and directed to \,,,,,,1 execute said agreement on behalf of. ·the Boards. of Directors. Agenda Item #6 -A-Districts 1 and 7 r - ~ . .. ., ~-~~ ) . ·:; .. . . . . TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 AND COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 {WARNER BYPASS AGREEMENT) THIS AGREEMENT made by and between COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 of Orange County, hereinafter calied "ONE" and •. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 of Orange County, hereinafter called "SEVEN", on the day of , 1968. ~~--~~~~~~--~ WHEREAS, SEVEN is anticipating the receipt of sewage effluent into its main sewer trunk system, i.e. (Redhill and Gisler trunks), in excess of the capacity of said sewers; and, WHEREAS, the planning,. financing and construction of additional sewerage facilities required to alleviate the afore- said inadequacy is estimated to require a period of three years; and, WHEREAS, ONE has excess capacity in its Graqd Avenue trunk and the trunk sewers connecting said Grand Avenue trunk with the joint treatment and disposal sewerage facilties of ONE and SEVEN; and, WHEREAS, the above-mentioned excess capacities of ONE are expected to be available for a period of three to five years: NOW, THEREFORE, I~ CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES and for other valuable c~nsideration, it is mutually agreed as follows: (1). ONE agrees to permit SEVEN to construct and maintain a bypass sewerage facility to connect into ONE 1 s Grand Avenue sewer in Warner Avenue at the most easterly manhole thereof and to discharge not to exceed 5.0 MGD (peak_ ca~acities) of sewage ·...._,,; and industrial waste effluent into ONE's sewerage system. ONE agrees to transport said sewage and industrial waste through its sewerage system to the joint treatment and disposal facilities of ONE and SEVEN at Plant No. 1. Agenda Item #6 B-1 Districts 1 & 7 '--··· ··•·· 'I :I 1: , , ... (2) SEVEN agrees to pay ONE a sum equal to $15.00 per MGD of sewage and industrial waste discharged into ONE's system at the Warner Avenue Bypass. On January 1, 1973 the rate shall change to $45.00 per MGD and thereafter shall increase at the rate of $15.00 per MGD annually. (3) A report of the amounts of sewag~ and industrial waste transported in accordance with this agree~ent shall be made by the General Manager of each District on or about Jul~ 1, t of each calendar year. The payments due shall be made upon acceptance of said reports. (4) As further consideration for this agreement, SEVEN agrees to discour~ge sizable annexations of territory to itself which are likely to.overload its inadequate trunk sewer capacities. (5) This agreement shall continue in full force and effect until changed or terminated by mutual agreement: provided ~ that either District may terminate this agreement upon giving written notice to the other one year in advance of a designated termination date. Agenda Item #6 B-2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 of Orange County, California By~~~~..--~~~~~~~~~~..--..--~ Chairman of its Board of Directors ATTEST: Secretary of its Board of Directors COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 of Orange County, California BY~---...--~~~__,....--~..--..--~~~-:--..--..---- Ch airman of its Board of Directors ATTEST: Secretary of its· Board of Directors Districts 1 & 7 ~· ENGINEERS• ARCHITECTS 412 SOUTH LYON STREET • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 • TELEPHONE <714> 547-4471 ADDRESS REPLY TO P.O. BOX 178 September 18, 1968 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County Post Office Box 5175 Fountain Volley, CA 92708 Gentlemen: Pursuant to Mr. Harper's reque:St, we ore pleased to submit our proposal for furnishing engineering services for the preparation of plans and spec ificotions for P Ion A-2 foci I ities as presented in the report on temporary r~ lief measures for the Gisler-Red Hill Trunk, dated Moy 1?68 by Boyle Engineering. "Plan A-2 consists of a relief line parallel to the Red Hill Trunk between Mitchell and .Valencia Avenues and a pumping station at Worner Avenue and Red Hill Avenue with a 14-inch force main running westerly on Warner Avenue to the Warner Avenue Trunk Sanitation District No. 1. This system will provide 5 mgd temporary relief, which should extend the functional life of the present District No. 7 outfo II syst_em three years (end of 1972) without inhibiting growth within the present district boundaries. We will perform th~ following professiono I engineering services for the above des~ribed re lief system. a. Hold conferences with representatives of the district, property owners or leasees involved, interested cities, and other pubBc agencies and others to review and discuss all aspects of the pr:oiect. · b. Make orrangel'!lents for and coordination of fie Id surveys, I ego I descriptions, soils investigations, and pavement coring. c. Prepare preliminary engineering studies and design for review and approval. d. Pr~pare engineering data for regulatory permit applications that may be required by the City of Tustin, county of Orange and State Division of Highways. e. Prepare detail plans and specifications. f. Prepare estimates .of quantities and costs. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Agenda Item #7 C-1 District 7 Board of Directors County Sanitati9n District No. 7 of Orange County September 18, 1968 Page 2 g. Deliver the original tracings of the plans and reprod_ucible plates of · the specifications for the district's use in prepori'ng the nece~sary number of copies for record purposes, distribution to prospective bidders, etc •. • h. Assist the district or its agent in securing bids, tabulation and analysis of bid results and in letting of contract. i. Check shop and working drawings as may be submitted by the contractor. j. Review laboratory reports on materials tests and inspections and correlate such reports with the intentions of the plans and specifications. k. Furnish consultation and advice to the district or its agent during construction. I. Furnish periodic observations of construction work and progress and provide appropriate reports to the district. m. Opserve initia I operation of the proiect, witnessing performance tests as required by the specifications and reportin_g same to the district. n. Make a fina I inspection and report of the comp feted proiect with a representative of the district or its agent. · o •. Prepare record drawings ("os-constructe·d 11 ) when construction wor.k has been completed and accepted by the district. This sha II mean the origina I tracings of the plans will be modified, if necessary, because of deviations from the origina I work. When inspection is carried out by personne I not directly employed by the engineer, modificat.ions to the original tracings will be based upon information supplied to the engineer by the district. The original tracings after being modified will become district property. It is suggested that the proposed work be divided into two contracts. One contract consisting of the gravity relief sewer and the force mo in and the other for the pumping station. We propose to provide the services in items a through o for the gravity and force main contract or c basic fee of $14,200; likewise, the same basic services for the pumping station contract for a fee of $9 ,000. We suggest that payment be monthly on a percentage completed basis up to 90% at time of delivery-of plans and specifications with 100% payment when the work is completed and accepted by the district. There will be field surveys requ.ired in order to prepare the plans and specifications. These surveys will include taking topography and culture within the proiect's limits. We propose that a II field surveys necessary for design be performed on a per diem basis at our per diem rates currently on file with the district. BOYLE ENGINEERING Agenda Item #7 C-2 District 7 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County September 18, .1968 Page 3 If any revisions are required by major changes in the scope of the proiect after the preliminary drawings are approved or after the fina I p Ions are comp feted . and such revisions are ordered by the district, we will perform such additiona I work at the current per diem rate. · We propose that all outside services that are required and approved by the district such as soils investigations, plant inspection .for quality control for materials used on project construction will be paid directly by the district upon presentation of a statement for such outside services with the engineer's certification •. All additional engineering work and services such as legal descriptions, construction staking, and construction inspection will be compensated at the current per diem rates •. Payment to be monthly as invoiced. If we are authorized to proceed with th is work at the September 24 meeting of the Board of Directors, we can have plans and specifications ready for the Board's approval at the February, 1969. boar? meeting. · · &t1:.,t1:t.L~hrl4~1/~ / Conrad Hohener, Jr., C. E. 10951 Principal Engineer BOYLE ENGINEERING Agenda Item #7 C-3 District 7 ENGINEERING 0 ENGINEERS e ARCHITECTS 412 SOUTH LYON STREET • SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 • TELEPHONE <714> 547-4471 ADORES~ REPLY TO P.O. BOX 178 July 25, 1968 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County Post Office Box 5175 Fountain Val fey / CA 92708 Pursuant to your authorizatio~ of Apri I 10, 1968, we have proceeded with a reappraisal of the annexation fee schedule for the District. We have also prepared a procedure for annexations of territory to the District with a suggested fee for processing costs. In reappraising the annexation fee, the basic philosophies employed in prior studies were generally followed. Briefly enumerated they are: 1. Excluded areas have relinquished rights in all District facilities, existing and under construction. 2. Additional sewerage facilities required within the annexed areas are to be constructed without cost to existing taxpayers of District. · 3. Existing facilities and those under construction will serve the existing District for a specific period of time, and the taxpayers have assumed the obligation and have the obi lity to pay for these foci Ii ties without assistance from outside areas. 4. After annexation new areas should be on the same basis as the rest of the District in solving long range future requirements for sewerage foci I ities. In reassessing th~ present fee schedule, four methods previously used in exami- nation of the problem were again considered. They ore: back taxes, value- appraisal of lands before and after, value-cost by alternative system, and area benefit/ cost. Lands considered most likely to request annexation in the future and which could be integrated into the existing system from on engineering and economic standpoint were analyzed. These lands, for the most part, consist of Lemon Heights, Cov1an Heights, Orange Park Acres, Peters Canyon and certain Irvine lands to the southeast of the Browning Subtrunk. Total acreage r - PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES Agenda Item #9 D-1 District 7 .·· c.-•• Board of Directors . County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County July 25, 1968 Page Two . involved is approximately 8, 800 acres. However, this is riot to be miscon- strued as recommending acceptance of any of these areas for annexation. Due to the limited capacities of the existipg trunk foci lities, only a limited portion of the study area con be annexed until the ultimate system is con- structed. We will comment about this later in the report. As a result of this reappraisal it is our recommendation that the following requirements, of which some are presently in effect, be continued and/or established as conditions to the annexation of territory to the District. 1. Payment of all costs incurred in processing the annexation. 2. Payment to the District the sum of $250. oq per acre of territory so· annexed. 3o That annexed territor.y be subiect to the terms and conditions of all ordinances pertaining to fees for connection to the District's facilities. 4. The annexed territory shal I be an~exed into an appropriate sewering agency for the purpose of maintaining and operating the local sewer system including pumping stations and force mains. S. The local sewerage system serving the annexation area shall be irJstalled and connected to the District's system without expense to the District. 6. The territory upon annexation shol I be subiect to al I ad valorum taxes required for the retirement of the existing and future bonds of the District. At the present time approximately 50 percent of the p6tentiol connections within the present District ore connected to the District's facilities. Because . of the large number of connections remaining to be mode and the capacity problems in the Gisler-Red Hil I Trunk, it is our recommendation that no rarge areas be annexed to the District until the ultimate trunk facilities· are con-· structed. Certain fringe areas contiguous to the ·District, principally in the Lemon Heights, Cowan Heights, and the westerly section of Orange Park Acres could be ·annexed without bei.ng detrimental to the best intere~ts of lands presently within the District. However, before proceeding too far w·ith any annexation request, the District should evaluate the effect additional sewage will hove on existing facilities. 0r._,u.cfJ,-J/-r-ll1u.JJ,Z. Conrod Hohener, Jr., C.E. 10951 pp 81-2908-00-00 BOYLE ENGINEERING Agenda Item #9 D-2 District 7 PROCEDURE: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY 10844 Ellis Ayenue, Post Office Box 5175 Fountain Volley, California 92708 (714) 540-2910 {714) 962-2411 PROCEDURE AND FEES FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT 1. All requests for annexation MUST be in writing and directed to the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County. 2. Such written request MUST contain the following: · (a) The true ond correct and complete •egal description of the territory for.which annexation is requested. TAX Bl LL DE SC RI PTI ONS AND ASSESSMENT NUMBERS ARE NOT ADEQUATE. (b) The names, addresses and telephone numbers of every owner within said territory and a designation of the portion or the interest owned by each person. (c) The assessed value of each separate parcel of land within the territory having a separate assessment, as shown on the last preceding equalized assessment roll of Orange County. (d) The total number of voters, if any, residing in the territory proposed for annexation. (e) Said written request must request the District to annex said territory. 3. Fees to be paid; when and how: (a) When written request is filed, it mu.st be accompanied by a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County in the sum of $325.00. . Shou Id these processing costs exceed the $325. 00 fee, opp Ii cants wi II be requested to deposit the amount of such excess with the District. NO PART of this charge is refund ab le under any circumstances. ' (b) The formal petition for annexation is prepared by the District and mailed to appli.cont for signature with a letter of instructions and a statement of the additional fees. When the oppli cont signs and returns the formal petition for annexation, it must be accompanied by A CASHIER'S CHECK equal to a fee of $250.00 per· acre for each acre to be annexed. This fee is refundable if the annexation fails. NOTE: All moneys paid to the District must be by cash, cashier's check, postal or bank money order or certified check. NO PERSONAL CHECKS WI LL BE ACCEPTED. _ _ . The above ·fees are subiect to change.· The fee schedule in effect at the time of actual payment of any fee is the one applicable. 4. It is the policy of the District n9t to accept for annexation any irregularly shaped territory which consists of subdivisions or proposed subdivisions where isolated parcels of property or lots are excluded from or ore not included within the territory to be annexed. 5. It is essential to allow 60 days from the time formal petition is signed and fees ore paid. Positively no use of District sewer lines unti I ofter date of hearing. Agenda Item #9 D-3 District 7 RESOLUTION NO. 68-81-7 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SMALLEY ROAD SUBTRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 7-lG-A A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SMALLEY ROAD SUB- TRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 7-lG-A; AUTHOR- IZING ADVERTISING FOR BIDS TO BE OPENED BY THE ENGINEER AND STAFF ON OCTOBER 11; AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF CONTRACT The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the Board of Directors by Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Consulting engineers, for construction of SMALLEY ROAD SUBTRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 7-lG-A, are hereby approved and adopted; and, Section 2. That the Secretary. be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California; and, Section 3. That said bids will be received until 4:00 p.m., October 11, 1968, at which time said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Board end the Consulting Engineer be authorized to ~pen said bids on behalf of the Board of Directors; and, Section 5. That the Chairman and Secretary, upon written recommendation of the design engineer as to the successful low ·bidder, be authorized to execute the contract. Agenda Item #lC -E-District 7 . " II MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California JOINT BOARDS P. 0. Box 5 175 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones : Aree Code 7 14 540-2910 962-2411 Septemb er 6, 1968 REGULAR MEET ING Wednesday, Septemb e r 11, 1968 7 :30 p.m. The following is a brief exp lanation of the more important non- routine items which appear o n the enc l osed agenda and which are not otherwise self -exp l anatory . Warrant l ists are not attached to the agenda since th ey are made up immed iately preceding th e meeting but wi ll appea r in the comp l e t e agenda available at the meeting . Joint Boards Nos. 14 and 15 -CONS I DERATION OF ACTION ON BI DS (PLA NT JOB NO. P2-8-3): This job, as the Directors will recall, is for ENCLOSURES - PHASE II and OPERATORS' BU ILDING at Plant No . 2 and has been planned and budget e d for several years It is hoped that the work can commence this fal l immediately after c o mpletion of the new Headworks "C" construction in o rder that our l ong -range program for improve - ment in the appearance of Plant No. 2 can b e substantially complete by next summer . Bids for this new job we r e taken on August 29 and a bid tabulation is enclosed with the agenda material . Th e bids received much exceeded the approved budget allo tment ($230,000) and the engineer 's estimate of $1 92,800 (for "tilt -up" construction alternate ). At our request, th e design engineers have submitted a letter (see agenda page F -1) analyz i ng the discrepancy between est i ma t e and actual bids . After reviewing the engineers' letter I discuss ed thi s entire matter with our Building Committee Chairman, Director Miller, and since there appears to be no clear-cut course t o follow, it is our recommendation that the Boards author i ze t he employment of one or more architectural consultants (A genda It e m No . 14) for the purpose of reviewing the project and the bids r eceived for its construction, and that the Districts proceed on th e basis of the consultants ' r ecomme ndation. We also re commend that the District No . 1 Board be given the authority to award the contract upon receipt of the written recom - mendation of the consultant(s) and co ncurr ence of the Engineers and General Manager, at an adjourned meeting to be held September 24 (Agenda It em No . 1 5). No . 16 -APPROVAL OF PLAN S AND SPEC I F I CATIONS FOR PLANT J OB NO . I-7-1 AND P2 -1 3 -l : I n acco r dance with our approved Plant Construction Budg e t and Schedul e for 1968-69, the next contract to be awarded is a major p i ping job at Plant No . 2 . This work will consist of a portion of two separa t e budget item s wh ich were comb i ned into o n e contra ct for reasons o f eco nomy and to expedite the above -de s cribed program of improv em e nts in the appearance of Plant No . 2 . The piping involve d includes a new 42 -inch raw sewa ge bypass l ine at Plant No . 2 connecting our 66 -inc h effluent line from Plant No. 1 t o t he new Headworks "c" and a parallel 108 -inch prima ry efflu ent line to serve future sedimentation basins at Plant No . 2 . The wo rk a lso includes a r athe r e laborate junctio n box connecting these fac ilities with existing pipe l ines . Plans and specifications for this new job are in t he process of being com plet ed a nd it is recommended t hat advertising for bids be authorized t o be received on October 31, with awa rd scheduled at the regular Novembe r Board meeting . The enginee r's e stimate for th i s job is $269,000 . No . 17 -CHANGE ORDER NO . 3, PLANT JOB NO . P2 -ll: As reported in the Manage r's Report for the August Board meeting, work on this Pl ant job, Headworks 11 c 1 ' at Pla nt No . 2, is scheduled for completion next mo n th . During the design of the wo rk described in the preceding item? it became obvious t hat that portion of the latter connecting the 4 2 -inc h raw sewage bypass line to the new Headworks could be accomplished much cheaper by the Headwork s' contractor. The basic r eason for this is that the present contractor i s set up for de - wate r ing and a portion of his work calls f o r excavation in the same area . We have asked the Headworks' contractor, J . Putnam Henck , to subm i t a quotat i on for the additiona l work i nvolved of i nstalling approxi mately 29 feet of vitri f i ed clay p i pe and a connection with the new Headworks . His quotat i o n o f $3,670 has been analyzed and i t is recommended that he be authorized to proceed with the extra work (Item 2 of t he formal change order enclosed with the agenda material). I n addi tio n , the r ecommended change order includes a re v ision to the engine cooling piping system in the amount of $717 , for a total addition to t h e co ntract price of $4,387. District No . 1 No . 23 -ADJOURNMENT TO SEPTEM BE R 24 : It i s suggested that the Board adjourn to the hour o f 4:30 p .m., September 24, to meet jo i ntly with the District No . 7 Board. Th e princip~l r eason fo r this adjournment i s to consider and take action, jo i ntly with District No . 7, on the proposed agreement between the Districts for the temporary disposal o f sewage from the District No . 7 system to the District No . 1 system . Preparation of this agreement was authorized at t he July 23 adjourned meet ing of the two Di strict Boards . This adjourned Board meeting will immediately precede the n e xt scheduled ~eeting of the Executive Committ e e . -2 - District No . 2 No. 24 -APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPEC IFI CATIONS, CONTRACT NO . 2-10 -9 (EUCLID TRUNK SEWER ): Plane and spec ifi cations for this project are now ready for bidding. The contract wil l cover the last remaining segment of the paralleling of the o l d Euclid Trunk Sewer. The co n- struction has been progressing on a pay-as-you-go basis since 1 964. The work basically i s for approxima tely two miles of 33-inch vitrified clay pipe sewer between Chapman Avenue and Ball Road i n the cities of Garden Grove and Anaheim . Complet i on of this project, at an estimated c o nstruction cost of $530,000, is schedul ed for the summer of 1 969 and will provide re lief for the existing Magno lia Trunk Sewer as well as better future sewer service for the cities along its route. Bids on this job are scheduled to be taken on Oc t ober 7 and i f i n order , the recommendation for award wi ll be made at the regular meeting in October. No. 25 -AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN PAC I FIC COMPANY: The above-described trunk sewer project will cross the Southern Pacific Company right of way between Katella and Cerritos Avenues . The Company requires, in such cases, that a formal agreement be executed before actual con- structio n is commenced . District No. 3 No. 29 -REPORT OF ENGINEER ON MANHO LE DAMAGE DUE TO FAILURE OF COATINGS: After an extens ive di scussion at the Augus t Board meeting concerning the basis for sett l ement of the District's lawsuit for damages r esulting from manhole coating failure, the engi neers and staff were directed to study the extent of the damages and report t o the Board in order that a basis of settlement could be establishe d . Immediately after the meeting Mr. Conrad Hohener , of Boyle Engineer - ing, supervised an inspection of those manholes known, from previo u s inspection s , to be severely damaged and will report to the Board on his findings and estimates as to a dol l ar amount of the damage . Di s tri ct No. 7 No. 39 -RECOMMENDED ACTION REGARDING PREPAYMENT OF CONNEC TION CHARGES : At the Joint meeting in August, the Board author i zed the construction of a proposed Master Plan sewer in Smalley Road wh i ch was requested by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District . The Sanitary Di strict has offered to finance the construction of this facility from the connection -charge funds accumul ated in their District No . 7 Fund . They have asked the deve l oper who proposes a development of 300 homes which will be served by this subtrunk sewer to prepay the connection charges wh i ch total approximately $15,000 . Since the developer will not build all of these homes at one time, he would like some assurance from the Board that in the event -3 - he does not construct them all, that the District will enter into a standard Master Plan Reimbursement Agreement for any prepaid fees not applicable to the houses constructed. No . 44 -AD J OURNMENT TO SEPTEMBER 24 : As described under Item No . 23, a joint meeting of Districts Nos. 1 and 7 is scheduled for 4:30 p.m ., September 24, immediately preceding the next regular meeting of the Executive Committee. In ad di t i on to the joint agreement of District No . 1 , described under I tem No. 23, it is expected that the Di strict No . 7 Board will have othe r items of business to take up, including authorizing advert i sing for b i ds for the Smalley Road Sub - Trunk Sewer. District No. 11 No. 45 -J OINT MEETING WITH SUNSET BEACH SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD: At the adjourned meeting of the Board on August 28, it was suggested that the California Regional Water Quality Control Board would per - haps wish to sponsor a joint meeting of the District No . 11 Board and the Sunset Beach Sanitary District Board in order to discuss possible sewer service to the Sunset Beach area by District No . 11 . We have just received a letter (copy in agenda material) from Mr. Richa r d Bueermann, Executive Officer of the Quality Control Board, suggesting such a meeting to discuss this matter. If the Sanitary District Board is also agreeable to t he proposed meeting, it can probably be arranged for the latter part of September, in which case a special Board meeting can be called by the Chairman. Nos . 46 and 47 -COMPLETION OF MANHOLE REPAIR CONTRACT : The con - tractor on this job (Manhole Reconstruct i on, Phase I, Contract No. 11 -llR -l) is successfully completing his work this week and it wil l be recommended that the work be accepted at this meeting . The start of the work was delayed for some time awa i ting receipt by the contractor of the formal excavation perm it from the State Division of Highways. Accordingly, by mean s of Change Order No . 1, we are recommending that an extension of time o f 15 days be granted for this reason (It em No. 46). I tem No . 47 is the customary resolution accepting the job as complete on September 5 and authorizing f i ling of a Notice of Completion. -4 - Fred A. Harper General Manager • II BO ARDS O F D IREC TORS County Sanitat io n Di stricts ~ r(/'-v{. of O range County, Celifornia ;:j Q,i'~d P. 0. Bo x 51 75 10844 El li s Aven ue Foun ta in Volley, C al if., 92708 JOI NT BOARD S AGEN D A Se p te mber 11, 1968 -7 :3 0 p.m . (1 ) P l ed ge of Alleg i ance (2 ) Ro ll Cal l (3 ) Appointments of Chairmen pro tern , i f necessary (4 ) DIS TRICT 1 Con sideration o f motion approving minutes of the regular meeting he l d August 14 , 1968 , as mailed (5 ) DI STRICT 2 Con siderat i on o f mot i on approving minutes of the r egular meeting he l d August 1 4 , 1968 , as ma iled (6 ) DI STRICT 3 Consideration of motion approving minutes of the regular meeting he l d August 14 , 1968 , as mailed (7 ) DISTRICT 5 Considerat i on of mot i o n approving minutes of the regular meeting held Aug u st 14 , 1968 , and the special meeting he ld September 5 , 1968 (8 ) DISTRICT 6 (9 ) (1 0 ) (11 ) (12 ) (1 3 ) Consideration of motion approving mi n utes of the regu lar meet i ng he l d Au g u st 14 , 1 968 , as mai l e d DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion approving minutes of the regular meeting held August 14 , 1 968 , as mailed DISTRICT ll Consideration of motion approving minutes of the regular meeting held August 14 , 1 968 , and the adjourned regular meeting thereof held August 28 , 1968 ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Joint Chairman ALL DISTRICTS --neport of the General Manager ALL DISTRICTS Report of the General Counsel (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to receive and file bid tabulation for Job No. P2-8-3 (Enclosures, Phase II and Operators' Building); and authorizing employment of architectural consultants to review the plans and bids and to recommend whether or not the contract should be awarded. Total expenditure not to exceed $850. See pages "F" and "F-1" ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion authorizing District No. 1 to award contract and to approve any recommended change orders for Job No. P2-8-3 upon receipt of the written recommendation of the architectural consultant and concurrence of the engineers and General Manager ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of Resolution No. 68-73, approving plans and specifications for Jobs I-7-1 and P2-13 . (Plant No. 1 Bypass Facilities at Plant No. 2; and Sedimentation Basin Effluent Facilities), and authorizing advertising for bids to be received until 4:00 p.m., October 31, 1968. See page "G" ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of mo ti.on approving Change Order No. 3 to the plans and specifications for Job No. P2-ll (Head- works "C" at Plant No. 2), granting an extension of time and authorizing a total addition of $4,387.00 to the contract with J. Putnam Henck, Contractor. See page "H" ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to receive and file certification of the General Manager that he has checked all bills appearing on the agenda, found them to be in order, and that he recommends authorization for payment ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of roll call vote motion approving Joint Operating Fund and Capital Outlay Revolving Fund warrant books for signature of the Chairman of District No. 1, and authorizing payment of claims listed on pages "A" "B" , and "C" ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications, if any ' (21) DISTRICT 1 (22) (23) . (24) Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. See page "D" DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications, if any DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn to 4:30 p.m., September 24th DISTRICT 2 Consideration of Resolution No. 68-74-2, approving and adopting plans and specifications for the Euclid Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 2-10-9, and authorizing advertising for bids to be opened at 4:00 p.m., October 7th. See page "I" -2- • (25) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of Resolution No. 68-75-2, authorizing acceptance of an easement from Southern Pacific Company, at no cost to the District, relative to construction of Contract No. 2-10-9. See page i'J" (26) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. See page "D" (27) DISTRICT 2 Other business and conununications, if any (28) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn (29) DISTRICT 3 Report of the engineers regarding damages due to failure of manhole coatings (30) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. See page "D" (31) DISTRICT 3 Other business and communications, if any (32) DISTRICT 3 (33) Consideration of motion to adjourn DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. See page "D" (34) DISTRICT 5 Other business and communications, if any (35) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn (36) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. See page "E" (37) DISTRICT 6 (38) (39) \,.I ( 4o) Other business and communications, if any DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to advise the developer of a tract on Smalley Road, that if he prepays connection charges and later does not develop. the property, the District will enter into a Master Plan Reimburse- ment Agreement to refund any prepaid fees not applicable DISTRICT 7 Consideration of Resolution No. 68-76-7, authorizing acceptance of an easement, at no cost to the District, from Collins Radio Company and Irvine Industrial Complex relative to the Stanford Research Institute sewer. See page ~"K~"--- -3- • (41) DISTRICT 7 (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) Gonsideration of Resolution No. 68-77-7, authorizing acceptance of an easement, at no cost to ~he District, from Tustana Homes. See page "L" DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motio~ approving warrants, if any. page "E" DISTRICT 7 Other business and communications, if any DISTRICT 7 See Consideration of motion to adjourn to 4:30 p.m., September 24th DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve request from the Executive Officer, Regional Water Quality Control Board, requesting that the District Board meet with the Sunset Beach Sanitary District Board relative to the possibility of District No. 11 providing sewer service to the Sunset Beach area; and directing the General Manager to advise the Executive Officer of the Board's willingness to meet jointly with the Sanitary District Board. See page "M" DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion approving Change O~der No. 1 to the plans and specifications for Contract No. 11-llR-l {Manhole Reconstruction, Phase I), granting an extension of time of 15 days to Cook & Barletta, Inc., Contractor. See page "N" DISTRICT 11 Consideration of Resolution No. 68-78-11, accepting Contract No. 11-llR-l as complete and authorizing the filing of a Notice of Completion of Work. See page· II Q fl DISTRICT 11 . Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. ~ee page "E" DISTRICT 11 Other business and communications, if any DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn to date to be determined -4- g96t 'tt Jaqwa~dag SiliN~wnooa DNI~Hoaans <INV sNor~n~os~H WARRANT NO. 9879 9880 L. j 9881 ~ 9882 9883 9884 9885 9886 9887 9888 9889 9890 9891 9892 9893 9894 9895 9896 9897 9898 9899 9900 9901 9902 9903 9904 9905 9906 ...._J. 9907 9908 9909 9910 9911 9912 9913 9914 9915 9916 9917 9918 9919 9920 9921 9922 9923 9924 9925 9926 9927 9928 9929 99.30 9931 ~932 9933 9934 9935 . 9936 9937 9938 JOINT OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF AAA Fremont Bag & Salvage Co., Burlap Bags Acore Drilling Service, Cored Drilling . A-1 Bearings & Abrasives, Bearings Advance Electric Co., Motor Rewind American Ai~ Filter Co., Filters · American Cryogenics, Inc., Lab & Welding Supplies City of Anaheim, Power The Anchor Packing Co., Gaskets, Small Hardware Apco Supply Co., Controls Atlas Stationers, Office Supplies Bank of America, Coupon Coll. Exp. Barnes & Delaney, Tires & Tuoes Bay City Bearing Co., Bearings Beach Fabricating Co., Metal Shop Work Beacon Auto Parts, Truck Parts Bell's Radiator Service, Radiator Repair Bomar Magneto Service, Inc., Magneto Repairs Charles Bruning Co., Drafting Supplies Buena Park Wholesale Electric, Electric Supplies California Water Pollution Control Assoc., Pump Ad Challenge-Cook Bros., Wheel Loader Parts C-L Chemical Products, Cleaning Supplies Clow Corp., Couplings College Lumber Co., Small Hardware Consolidated Elect~ical Dist., Elect. Sup~lies Costa Mesa Auto Parts, Inc., Truck Parts Costa Mesa County Water Dist., Water John M. Deck Co., Port. Equip. Parts, Starter De Guelle & Son's Glass Co., Truck Repairs Dial Hydrocrane Service, Crane Rental Diesel Control Corp., Filters, Engine Parts Enchanter, Inc., Ocean Sampling & Current Monitoring Engineers Sales-Service Co., Pump Parts · Fischer & Porter Co., Vaporizer Parts Flair Drafting Service., Drafting Service Foster Sand & Gravel Co., Crane Rental Fowler Equipment, Inc., Crane Rental Freeway Machine & Welding Shop, Machine Shop Work ·aaines Electric Supply Co., Electric Supplies General Telephone Co. Gladman & Wallace, Tires & Tubes Bob Gosche Co., Small Hardware H & H Supply Co., Epoxy Harlow Clocks, Clock Repair AMOUNT 68.25 35.00 23.12 591.56 181.06 64.46 95.73 144.27 223.37 68.82 698.46 12.22 89 .18 4.75 59.97 40.00 85.34 154.83 645.48 L~6 .00 31.57 44.30 62.24 81.87 295.83 360.04 6.oo 28.21 31.50 114.oo 150.89 4,110.00 18.90 132.90 424.oo 244.oo 482.00 12.50 111.89 1,079.15 40.91 155.86 34.65 Fred A. Harper_, C .o .D. Supplies & Var:i.ous Meeting Exp. Hennig Inc., Paint Vehicle 13.40 78.81 64.05 326.00 11.00 618.47 1,514.21 7.30 Hercules, Inc., Chemicals ·James E. Hilborn, Employee Mileage Honeywell, Inc., Controls, Instrument Repairs Howard Supply Co., Pipe Supplies, Small Tools City of Huntington Beach, Water ILG Industries, Inc., Electric Supplies Imperial First Aj_d Supply Co., Supplies International Business Machines, Office Supplies International Harvester Co., Truck Parts Johnson Service Co., Valve Mtce. Jones Chemicals, Inc., Chlorine Kar Products, Inc., Elect. Supplies, Hardware Keenan Pipe & Supply Co., Pipj_ng Supplies Kelly ·Pipe Co., Piping Supplies -A- 121.28 18.23 33.08 82.30 62.45 11,088.00 122.06 21lt. 28 141.19 WARRANT NO. 9939 9940 9941 9942 \...,) 9943 9944 9945. 9946 9947 9948 9949 9950 9951 9952 9953 9954 9955 9956 9957 9958 9959 9960 9961 9962 9963 9964 9965 9966 9967 9968 \,wJ. 9969 9970 9971 9972 9973 9974 9975 9976 9977 9978 9979 9980 9981 9982 9983 9984 9985 9986 9987 9988 9989 9990 9991 9992 .· 9993 ~999 1~· 9995 9996 9997 9998 9999 10000 IN FAVOR OF Kleen-Line Corp., Maintenance Supplies $ Knox Indust.rial Supplies_, Hardware Herbert H. Kyzer, Jr., Employee Mileage Judy Lee, Employee Mileage LBWS, Inc., Small Tools Leupold & Stevens Instruments, Telemete~ing Supplies L & N Uniform Supply Co., Uniform Rental Chas. Lowe Co., Pump Parts Mccalla Bros., Seals, Pump Parts McGraw-Hill Publications, Technical Journal J. M. McKinney Co., Line Clean Tools Mahaffey Machine Co., Machine Shop Work Metermaster, Inc., Meter Repair Mobile Oil Corp., Grease · Morrison Co., Valves The National Cash Register Co., Forms City of Newport Beach, Water C. Arthur Nisson, General Counsel Retainer O. c. Supr>liers, Inc., Small Hardware Oakite Products, Cleaning Compound Co. of Orange, Juvenile Work Program Ohio Tool & Engineering Co., Small Tools Orange County Radiotelephone Pacific Telephone Co. Postmaster, Postage Douglas E. Preble, Employee Mileage Quindar Electronics, Inc., Electric Suoolies The Register, Newspaper Subscription Repco, Engine Block Russell M. Scott., Sr., Employee Mileage Santa Ana Blue Print Co., Map E. H. Sargent & Co., I:ab Supplies Sebastaino F. Serrantino, Employee Mileage Sherwin-Williams Co., Paint A. H. Shipkey, Inc., Tires & Tubes John SiglerJ Employee Mileage & WPCF Conf. Adv. Smith Optical Service, Safety Glasses So. California Edison Co. So. Califo~nia Water Co. So. Counties Gas Co. ·southern Marine Supply, Small Hardware . Southland Machinery Corp,, Compressor Parts Sparkletts, Bottled Water Speed-E-Auto Parts, Truck Parts 39 Stake & Building Supplies Co.,· Survey Supplies Standard Oil Co., Diesel Fuel Standard Ready-Mix Concrete, Concrete State Comp. Fund, State Comp. Policy Premium Sterling Electric Motors, Inc., Drive Belts ·Sully-Miller Co., Asphalt Stockpile Surveyors Service Co., Small Tools C. O. Thompson Petroleum Coo, Weed Oil J. T. Thorpe, Inc., Incinerator Repairs Tinker & Rasor Co., Test Equi9ment F. H. Toppin Co., Vacuum Repair Transport Clearir.gs, Freight Union Oil Co., Gasoline Earl Vinson Auto Parts, Tool Repair John R. Waples R.s., Odor Consultant Warren & Bailey Co., Small Hardware Waukesha Engine Servicenter, Engine Parts .western Belting & Mechanicals, Inc., Mtce. Supplie~ -n- AMOUNT 163.10 141.00 . 21.70 19.80 565.60 12.96 722.98 140.18 88.63 14.oo 22.05 82.98 64.83 36.38 64.52 420.11 1,185.54 700.00 13.75 86.33 400.00 16.00 411.90 348.50 200.00 29.50 53.44 13.50 131.25 22.80 4.81 590.54 26.80 359.17 182.55 119.00 13.60 10, 030,!~7 3.66 703089 44.77 32.39 105.85 88.15 35.39 175.06 45.73 12,764.13 143.46 l.!-6. 26 4.48 121.69 320.00 195.30 . 15. 73 27.81 719 .51 9.50 108.50 154.57 716.28 63000 WARR.L\NT NO. \wt 10001 I 10002 10003 10004 10005 10006 10007 IN FAVOR OF Western Salt Co., Salt Michael Wilson, Employee Mileage Wilson Engine & Equipment Co., Engine Parts TOTAL JOINT OPERATING FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS John Carollo Engineers Freedom Newspapers, Inc. J. Putnam Henck Wallace Trade Bindery Co. TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND TOTAL JOI:NT OPERATING AND CORF -c- AMOUNT $ 63.00 41.80 119.70 $ 60,291.07 $ 7, 3·28.02 90.01 52,214.22 92.94 $ 120,016.26 .WARRANT NO. 10008 iooo9 10010 10011 10012 10013 ~. 10014 10015 . 10016 DISTRICT NO. 1 .ACCUMULATED CAPI.TAJ_, OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF. City of Santa Ana DISTRICT NO. 2 ACCUMUI, . .t\TED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOH OF Aladdin Lithe & Art Boyle Engineering J.R. Lester Boyle and Sidney L. Lowry Merco Construction Engineers Inc. J. L. Scott Company DISTRICT NO. 3 OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles, County DISTRICT NO. 5 OPERATING FUi'ID WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF City of Newport Beach ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTJ.AY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Fairbanks Morse,Inc. -D- AMOUNT ~ 100,000.00 ~ 100,000.00 $ 64.83 2,584.44 4,683.85 14R,611.20 3 ,101.00 ~ 185,045.32 $ 160.00 ~ 160.00 ~ 460.00 $ 2,413.74 $ 2,873.74 DISTRICT NO. 7 ·OPERATING FUND WARRANTS WARRANT NO. IN FAVOR OF AMOUNT J_QQ17 .Boyle Engineering $ 45.00 10018 Boyle and Lowry 252.00 10019 Irvine Industrial Complex 103.50 ~ 400.50 FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF 10020 Boyle Engineering 966.00 10021 John M.Bowman 23.02 10022 Clarence L. Conzelman 23.02 10023 Ernst Leibacher 598.45 10024 County of Orange 28.05 10025 Richard B. Smith 23.01 ~ 1,661.55 ·~ 2,062.05 DISTRICT NO. 11 OPERATING FUi'ID WARRANTS 'w/ .. IN FAVOR OF 10026 Cook and Barletta, Inc. ~ 3~307.50 ~ 3,307.50 -:E:- BID ·TABULATION ·~ SHEET Contract: ENCLOSURES -PHASE II AND OPERATORS BUILDING JOB NO. P2-8-3 Contractor 1. Saffell & McAdam, Inc. Costa.Mesa, California 2. w. J. Burke Construc.tion Coo, Anaheim, California 3. J. Putnam Henck San Bernardino, California 4. Margate Construction, Inc. Wilmington, California 5. 6. 7. 8. g. 10. -- Agenda Item #14 -F- Inco Date August 29, 1968 I Alto "Alf I Alt. 11 Bif $1 2 800 $186 500 En~ineer 1 s Estimate , ' Total Bid $233,451 $230,451 $249,211 $248,211 $253,876 $247,448 $259,950 $251,750 ' . All Districts '--· -----------J 0 H N CAR 0 LL 0 ENGINEERS----------.:.- Phoenix, Arizona Lafayelfe, California .IOHN A. CAROLLO. P.E. ROBERT M. BRERETON. P.E. H. HARVKY HUNT. P.E. HOWARD M. WAY. P.E. ROBERTO. WILLIAMS, P.E. DONALD R. PREISLER. P.E. September 3, 1968 Mr. Fred A. Harper, General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. O. Box 51 75 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Ef Paso, Texas Reply to1 Subject: Enclosures Phase. II and Operators Building 3688 M:r. DIABLO BOULEVARD LAFAYETTE. CALIFORNIA 94549 AREA CODE 41S Enclosed is a summary of the cost breakdown of the above mentioned project. The cost breakdown is for Saffel and McAdam, J. P. Henck, and John Carollo Engineers. The breakdowns indicate that the major discrepancies between the bids and the Engineerts Estimate are in the subcontractor work, and most of this is in the three items (1) Cement Asbestos Board; (2) Insulation; and, (3) Structural Steel. The price we used for Cement Asbestos Board was given to us by a Johns-Manville representative after he had reviewed the Plans and Specifications. The Structural Steel. price was obtained by using a price of 35¢ to 40¢ per pound, which was obtained from Means Building Construction Cost Data, 1968. The Insulation price we used was 35¢ per square foot,· which was also obtained from Means. Comments that we noted from our meeting with Mr. Saffel and Mr. Ross of Saffel and McAdam, Inc., and from a telephone conversation with Mr. J. P. Henck on August 30, 1968, are as follows: 1.. Contractors are not hungry now. · 2. There is a shortage of labor, especially carpenters. 3. Rebidding would not bring a lower price unless conditions we·re as they were in late 1966 and early 1967. They did not expect thes~ conditions to return in the forseeable future. 4. About half of the subcontractors in the area have gone broke and, consequently, the remainder bid on only the normal jobs and boost their price on the difficult jobs. 5. Time limit was no problem. Agenda Item #14 F-1-1 All Districts 6. Could not see any way to lower the price other than elimination of architectural frills. · a. Eliminate T-G Building trim -$15, 000 to $20, 000 b. Reduce architectural trim of Pflanz ... $3 1 000 to $41 000 $6,·000 to $8 1 000 7. Contractor add~d about 10% because of difficulty o~ work~ng in tight quarters. 8. Price escalatiOn since June is about 1% overall. Lumber 30%1 but not much lumber· on this job except formwork. 9. Subcontractor that quoted insulation is the same one that is doing Headworks C. Henck said subcontractor is losing money on Headworks and may be trying to make it up on this job. Henck had another price at about half the quoted price 1 but it was withdrawn priC?r to bid time. From the above comments, and the attached summary, it is not apparent whether the bid is too high or the estimate too low. The only method suggested by the Contraetor of reducing the cost was to eliminate some of the work. V.ery truly yours, N CAROLLO ENGINEERS HMW:ml Enclosure z Agenda Item #14 F-1-2 All Districts ....... ·-... ENCLOSURES PHASE II AND OPERATORS BUILDING -.._,,), P2-8-3 SUMMARY OF COST BREAKDOWN Saffel & McAdams Henck JCE Total: · Alternate A $233,451 $253,876 $192,800 Alternate B 230,451 247,448 186,500 Difference 3,000 6, 428 6,~00 Prime Contractor Work $103,980 107, 005 116, 381 Subcontractor Work 129,471 146, 871 76,419 Subcontractor Breakdown: Reinforcing Steel 7,746 7,746 (incl w/Prime) Cement .. Asbestos Board 9, 411 9, 411 · 3, 660) Structural Ste el 43,900 43, 760 22, 793 Insulation 11, 761 11, 761 770 Steel Decking 17,587 17, 587 19, 980 Millwork and Laboratory 2,805 3, 776 1, 780 Sheet Metal and Heating 5, 725 5, 725 5, 900 Plumbing 2,500 2, 500 C__~zs Remove Pipe 3,000 14,.079 Electrical 3, 920 5, 130 5,057 Roofing 4,732 7~ 190 4,705 . ·'-""· Plastering and Drywall 1,926 610 350 aiazing 5,800 7,600 1,444 Torginal and Tile 1, 025 1, 717 1, 900 .. Paint 4,000 4, 875· 480 Special Doors {inclo hardware) 2,054 2,054 2,820 Masonry 934 l,, 000 1, 1 70 Acoustical Surface 295 535 Toilet Partition 350 350 350 Agenda Item #14 F-1-3 All Districts ~- "RESOLUTION NO. 68-73 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLANT NO. 1 BYPASS-FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2 JOB I-7-1 SEDIMENTATION BASIN EFFLUENT FACILITIES JOB P2-13-l A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, .7, AND 11, OF ORANGE COUNTY,· CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLANT NO. 1 BYPASS FACILI~IES AT PLANT NO. 2 JOB I-7-1, SEDIMENTATION ·BASIN EFFLUENT FACILITIES JOB P2-13-l The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County·, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the Boards of Directors by John Carollo Engineers, Districts' Engineers, for construction of PLANT NO. 1 BYPASS FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2 JOB I-7-1, SEDI:MENTATION BASIN EFFLUENT FACILITIES JOB P2-13, are hereby approved and adopted; and, Section 2. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California; and, Section 3. That said bids will be received until 4:00 p.m. October 31, 1968, at which time said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Boards and the Districts' Engineer be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the . Board of Directors. Agenda Item #16 · -G-All Districts "'-'1· COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P. O. BOX 5175 -10844 Ellis Avenue -Fountain -Valley, -California -92708 . .. CHANGE ORDER C.O. NO. -------- CONTRACTOR: J. Putnam Henck DATE: Sept. 11, 1968 JOB: Headworks "c" at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-ll Amourit of this change order (ADD) (".l:V~ In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the contract and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved. REFERENCE: Contractor's letter received August 30, 1968,·Districts' .Memoranda dated August 9.and August 30, 1968, Contract ·Drawings Y-5A(Rev. 1), M-lOA(Rev. 1), M-llA(Rev. 1), M-14A(Rev. 1) and M-35A(Rev. 1) · 1. Revise the engine cooling system pipe as shown on Drawings M-lOA(Rev. 1), M-llA(Rev. 1), M-14A{Rev. 1) and M-35A(Rev. 1) (NOTE: The following item is specifically to facilitate the work for Job No. I-7-1, Plant No. 1 Bypass) 2. Install a 42-inch V.C.P. pipe and connect.to Headworks "c" as indicated on Sheet Y-5A(Rev. 1) $ 717.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER ADD 31670.00 $4,387.00 * * * * * * * * * * * EXTENSION OF TIME:· An extension of time of 15 calendar days to toe Contract period for the above items of work is hereby granted. Original Contract Price $ 2, 495, 961. 00 Prev. Auth. Changes ADD $ 5,016.88 This Change (ADD)~ $ 4,387 .oo Amended Contract Price $ 2,505,364. 88 Board authorization date: Approved: ~ Sep~·. 11, 1968 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Orange County, California By /s/ Paul G. Brown Chief Engineer J. PUTNAM HEijCK Agenda Item #17 -H-All Districts RESOLUTION NO. 68-74-2 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR EUCLID TRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 2-10-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR EUCLID TRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 2-10-9 The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2, of Orange County; California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the Board of Directors by Boyle Engineering, District's engineers, for construction of EUCLID TRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 2-10-9, are hereby approved and adopted; and, Section 2. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Hea~th and Safety Code of the State of California; and, Section 3. That said bids will be. received until 4:00 p.m., October 7, 1968, at which time said bids will be publicly opened and r~ad; and, Section 4. That the Secretary ·or the Board and the District's Engineersbe authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Board of Directors. Agenda Item #24 -I-District 2 . .....; RESOLUTION NO. 68-75-2 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY The Board of Directors 9f County Sanitation District No. 2, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain agreement, dated September 11, 1968, wherein SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Delaware grants to COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 . permission to construct and maintain a 33" sewer line beneath the Company's tracks and property near West Anaheim -Stanton, is hereby approved; and, Section 2. That the Chairman and Secretary of the Board of Directors are hereby_ authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of the District.in form acceptable to the General Counsel. Agenda Item #25 -J-District 2 RESOLUTION NO. 68-76-7 AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT FROM COLLINS RADIO COMPANY AND IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain Grant of Easement, dated August 19, 1968, ~herein COLLINS RADIO COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation and IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, a California Corporation, grant to County Sanitation District No. 7 a permanent easement for sewer purposes situated in the County of Orange, State of California, is hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 2. That the real property over which said easement is granted is more particularly described as follows: All that strip of land 15 feet wide in the County of Orange, State of California, the centerline of which is described as follows: Beginning at a point in the Northwesterly line of Parcel 1 as shown on that certain Parcel Map recorded April 6, 1966 in Book 2, Page 30 of : Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Orange County; distant N 40° -38 1 -26" E 570.09 feet from the Northwest corner therof; thence N 47° 58 1 38'~ W 642 .11 feet to the Easterly line of MacArthur Boulevard, 110 feet wide, as described in a Deed recorded in Book 1047, Page 557, Official Records of said Orange County. Section 3. That said Grant of Easement is accepted at no cost to the District; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Board of Directors be authorized and directed to record said Grant of Easement in l..._J the Official Records of Orange County, California. Agenda Item #40 -K-District 7 RESOLUTION NO. 68-77-7 AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD.OF DIRECTORS. OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT FROM TUSTANA HOMES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain Grant of Easement, dated August 29, 1968, wherein TUSTANA HOMES, a limited partnership, grants to County Sanitation District No. 7 a permanent easement for sewer purposes in connection with Parcels 1 and 2 of Tract No. 5265, is hereby approved and adcepted; and, Section 2. That the real property over which said easement is granted is more particularly described as follows: Parcel 1. Westerly 10.00 feet of the Easterly 20.00 feet of Lot 16, Tract No. 5265 as shown on a map thereof recorded in Book 238, pages 30 & 31, Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California Parcel 2. The Southerly 10. 00 feet of Lots 7 and 14, -Tract No. 5265 as shown on a map thereof recorded .in Book 238, pages 30 & 31, Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. Section 3. That said Grant of Easement is accepted at no cost to the District; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Board of Directors be authorized and directed to record said Grant of Easement in the Official Records of Orange County, California. Agenda Item #41 · -L-District 7 STATE Of CALIFORNIA-RE.SOURCES AGENC't ~SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL. BOARD 6848 MAGNOLIA AVENUE, SUITE U, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506 THOMAS V. CHANDLER LAWRENCE E. COFFEY ROBERT A. DAILY WILLIAM H. McGURTY DONALD F. MITCHELL EVERETT C. ROSS ALBERT E. SCHROEDER . RICHARD A. BUEERMANN fxecuflve Officer September s. 1968 Board of Directors, Sunset Beach Sanitary District Attention: Mr. Richard L. Harrison, District Supe1"intenclent Boa1"Cl of Directors, Orange County Sanitation D5.strict No. 11 Attention: Mr. Fred Harper, General Manager City of Huntington Beach Attention: Mr. Doyle Hiller, City Manager RONALD REAGAN, Governor This office has received complaints from residents of Huntington Harbour. of odors allegedly a1"ising from the Sunset B~ach Sanitary District seHage treatment plant operations. The intensity of the complaints is great and the complainants are quite concerned about the matter. We understand that the sanitary district, the City of Huntington Beach, and Orang·:= County Snnitation D5.strict No. 11 have been negotiating for several years towards tha end of by-passing and abandoning th~ Sunset Beach tl'eatn~nt plant with sewage being handled by the City, District No. 11 and the joint County Sanitation Districts. The staff of this board concurs in this ultimate· goal. In view of the intensi-ty of the residential development in close proximity to the set-mge t1"'eatrrent plant on \'larncr Avenue, we b~lieva this plant should be eii:i1er modernized or abandoned. Hod~rnization may be cost:ly and does not appear at first glance to be the best solution for the long term. Since complaints have arisen of odors that apparently orig·rn.a·te 1 at least in part:, from the ti"'eatJ~:2nt plant operation, \·1e feel that wa should assist in any way we can to h~!lp 1"'2solve the problem. The first step ,.,ould be for this board to call th3 two clistr·ict boards and the City staff together f 01"' a full discussion of the mn:i:ter to as- certain the a1"'cas of ag1"'~en~nt and disagrecm3nt and to sce1~ early agreement on consolidation. Agenda 'Item #45 M-1 District 11 '..._) ~ '.._.I Sunset Beach Sanitary Dist. Orange County San. Dist. No. 11. City of Hunting.ton Beach -2-9-5-68 • Please advise us prior to September 16 of your willingness to parti- cipate in such a discussion with our staff and of the dates you could meet. We will then arrange an acceptable meeting date. Your early reply will be very much appreciated as we view this as an urgent matter. , ~1 a&u-ufa-<~ RICHARD A. BUEERHANN Executive Officer ' Agenda Item #45 M-2 ·. District 11 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY · P. o. BOX 5175 -10844 Ellis Avenue ___ Fountain Valley, California 92708 CHANGE ORDER C .O. NO. 1 --~~~~----~--- Cook & Barletta, Inc. ~ATE: Sept. 11, 1968 JOB: Manhole Reconstruction, Phase. I, Contract No. 11-llR-l Amourit o_f this change order (ADD) {DEDUCT) $ none ---- In accordance with contract provisions, the :following changes in the contract and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the following additions to or deductions :from the contract price are hereby approved. EXTENSION OF TIME Acts o:f Other Agencies Delay in r.eceipt of construction permit from State Division of Highways REFERENCE: Engineer's letter dated Sept. 5, 1968 * * * * * * * * * * * * Original specified completion date: Completion date with this extension of time -15 calendar days Actual completion date August 21, 1968 September 5, 1968 September 5, 1968 15 Original Contract Price $ 5,250.00 Board authorization date: \.._/ Sept. 11, 1968 Agenda Item #46 Prev. Auth. Changes $ none This Change (ADD) {DEDUCT) $ none Amended Contract Price $ 5,250.00 -N- Approved: ·coUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Orange County, California By /s/ Paul G. Brown Chief Engineer COOK & BARLETTA, INC. District 11 RESOLUTION NO. 68-78-11 ACCEPTING CONTRACT FOR MANHOLE RECONSTRUCTION, PHASE I, CONTRACT NO. 11-llR-l AS COMPLETE A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11·, OF ORANGE· COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CONTRACT FOR MANHOLE RECONSTRUCTION, PHASE I, CONTRACT NO. 11-llR-l AS COMPLETE The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the contractor, Cook and Barletta, Inc., has completed the construction in accordance with the terms of the contract for the MANHOLE RECONSTRUCTION, PHASE I, CONTRACT NO. 11-llR-l, on the 5th day of September, 1968; and, Section 2. That by lett~r, Lowry and Associates, District's engineers, have recommended acceptance of said work ~. as having been completed in accordance with the terms of the contract; and, Section 3. That the Chief Engineer of the District has concurred in said engineers' recommendation, which said recom- mendation is hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 4. That the MANHOLE RECONSTRUCTION, PHASE I, CONTRACT NO. 11-llR-l, is hereby accepted as completed in accordance with the terms of the contract therefor, dated the 23rd aay of May, 1968; and, Section 5. That the Chairman of· the District is hereby authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion of Work therefor. Agenda Item #47 -0-·nis tric t 11 _9 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 10844 ELLIS AVENUE, P.a. sax 5175, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 92708 Gentlemen: August 29, 1968 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING DISTRICT NO. 5 Thursday, 4:00 p.m., September 5, 1968 Council Chambers Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, California TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 I am calling a special meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 at the above hour and date. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the following items: 1. 2. 3. Consideration of Staff Report on Re-Appraisal of the District's Current Connection-Charge Schedule. See page "A" Progress report on the arrangements authorized by the Board on April 12th, for the construction of the Big Canyon Sewer. See pages "B" and "C" Consideration of Written Interim Report of the Engineer regarding increasing the capacity of the Jamboree ~umping Station. (Report will be included in the agenda at the meeting) /s/ Lindsley Parsons Chairman ·COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS. OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 10844 ELLIS AVENUE, P.O. BOX 5175, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF"ORNIA, 92708 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 5 .of Orange County August 29, 1968 - Subject: Report on Re-Appraisal of District's 9urrent Connection ~harge Schedule TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 The Directors will recall that at the April 11, 1968 adjourned Board meeting, the staff was instructed to "make a complete study of the financing required to construct facilities as· outlined by the District's Engineer and recommend a connection charge schedule that _will enable the District to finance its capital improvements without . increasing the ad valorem tax rate". ,. . Statement of Problem and Background Information The Board's request for this report was-caused primarily by an inquiry from the Irvine Company regarding the financing of three additional trunk sewers (Big Canyon Trunk, Los Trances Trunk and Buck Gully Trunk) which were not included in the 1964 ultimate facilities plan. After consideration of the matter, the Board approved prepa- ration of an ~greement with the Company whereby the Company will construct the Big Canyon Sewer and be reimbursed by the District from funds collected for connection charges within the area tributary to the sewer. Th~ 1964 engineering report by Donald c. Simpson, which led to the adoption of the Ultimate Facilities Plan proposed in the report, .·. listed total ultimate needed facilities in the District and estimated the District No. 5 share of their cost at $2,366,ooo (District No. 6 would contribute a minor amount). · Of these projects, all of those listed to be 6onst~ucted before 1970 have been completed at a total cost of $829,000. Of this sum,. $400,000 has been borrowed from the Irvine· Company, $340,8o~·derived A-1 Board of Dir~c~ors from District's tax revenue and $88,200 from District's connection charges. Shortly after Mr. Simpson's, report was submitted, a financing report and plan. by Bartle Wells a_nd Associates was submitted and approved. This plan contemplated financing the entire $2,366,000 plan from connection charges at $120 per dwelling unit. An escalation of this charge, by $5 per year, was also recommended but not used in the financing projections. Since the 1964 Simpson report was adopted, . two modifications have been made which have increased the total project costs. In addition, the cost of the portion of the work now completed is now known. From these two factors we can arrive at a reasonable estimate that the total remaining project costs to ultimate saturation, including the above-described three new sewers, will be slightly more ·.than $3 million. . · · In addition to connection charges, the Bartle Wells report also recommended an initial annexation fee of $250 per acre for outside areas desiring to use the District's system. However, funds raised ·.·in this manner were reco~~ended to be applied to treatment ·plant . expansion. "...,_) Financing Projection~ Ordinance No. 502 (July, 1965) of the District establishes the ~bove connection charges. At the time of adoption of the Ordinance, considerable study was given to the recommendation of Bartle Wells that the charge be escalated on a regular ba~is. However, this excalation plan was not incorporated in the Ordinance. The staff estimates, as matters now stand, that the $3 million remaining project cost plus the $1~00,000 obligation to the Irvine Company will exceed by $1,280,000 the remaining amount to be ultimately collect~d from the present connection fees. The staff has also calculated that to finance all facilities by connection charges, as contemplated, would require that the connection charge be increased to an average of $200 each over the next 20 years. This calculation is based on using $150,000 of ad valorem tax funds now available, plus $100,000 available from the Facilities Revolving Fund in ~hich connection charges are deposited. Alternate Finand.n~ As pointed out at the April 11 m~eting the District, on the assumption that other standard financing methods such as a bond issue A-2 '....,,) . .. --· . -;-_ Board of Directors are eliminated from consideration, has the choice of either (1) Increasing the connection charges to an average of $200 over the next 20 years (2) Raising the additional $1,280,000 required by ad valorem tax· over the period with the connection charge remaining at the present figure or (3) A combination of a lesser increase in the connection charge and some ad valorem tax financing. If Alternate No. 2 is selected, it is extimated that, on the basis of an annual increase of assessed valuations of 7%, the average ad valorem tax necessary to be levied to provide the sum of $1,280,000 in 20 years will be approximately 2.li. It is impossible to state at this time whether this rate will result in an over-all increase in : the District's tax rate, which is 27. 0¢ for 1968-69. Hm·Jever, it appears probable that such an increase will not be necessary since the present and past District budgets have included funds from general taxation for capital outlay projects. . If Alternate No. 3 is selected, the tax rate for capital outlay . will, or course, be less than the estimated 2. lt under .Alternate No. 2, depending upon what increase in connection charges is finally established. 4.~;r?I~ · General Manager A-3 ... .. "' S H U I ·R M A N -S I M P S 0 N. consulting civil engineers URBANUS SQUARE MacARTHUR BLVD. AT FORD ROAD CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 (714) 644-0563 A~gust 20, 1968 County Sanitation District No. 5 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Attention: Mr. Fred A. Harper, General Man~ger We have reviewed the ·preliminary plans for the Big Canyon trunk sewer, and have resolved most of the technical questions with the design engineer. However, a number of other items have been discussed that are outside the ·technical engineering area which I feel should be resolved prior to the start· of construction. The.se items are as follows: 1. The trunk will not have capacity to serve the portion of District 5 lying northerly of proposed Ford Road and westerly of MacArthur Boulevard. Previous discussions have indicated that this area will be either de-annexed from District No. 5 or served by Irvine Ranch Water District under contract with District No. 5. Perhaps it would be well to have an assurance from the Irvine Company that this area will not be connected to the B~g Canyon trunk. 2. How will the costs of the sewer construction to be included in the reimbursement agreement be determined? I understand that the developer either has obtained or is in the process of obtaining bids for the work. Will this be satisfa6tory, or will the District require formal type of bid advertising and award? Will the reimbursable cost of the construction include e~gineeri~g des~gn, plan check, and inspection? . 3. Under what conditions can the sewer be constructed prior to granti~g of the necessary easements and execution of a reimbursement ~greement. 4. In the future, when the adjacent areas are developed, it appears that grading will be required over the sewer. It might be well to provide for this future.gradi~g in ·the grant of easement. B -1 - .. . ;- 9; ~ .. . .. 5. The construction of an access road will result in cut slopes outside the proposed 15-foo.t. easement. Provisions for the maintenance of these slopes and the clearing of possible slide material from the access· road should be included in the grant of easement. 6. It will undoubtedly take some time to formalize the reimburs·ew,ent agreement and to grant all the necessary easem.ents. Until ·these steps are completed, I assume the sewer cannot be accepted by the District and, therefore, Bren's Tract would be served on an interim basis by, in effect, a private sewer. All parties involved should be aware of this condition since this m~ght not be acceptable. ·• Please let me know if you want my help in resolvi~g or clarifyi~g any of the above items. DCS:c cc-J.Panchal, Irvine Co. cc-M.Anderson, Raub,Bein,Frost B -2 - SHUIRMAN-SIMPSON .d-nd/a/~ Donald c. Simpson . _, -,. THE IRVINE. CO:NIPANY IRVINE,CALl~ORNIA 92664 71<il•!i41A-0120 August 22, 1968 Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Attention Mr.· Fred Harper, General Manager Dear Mr. Harper: Reference is made to the letter dated August 20, 1968 from Don Simpson on the review of preliminary plans for the Big Canyon trunk sewer to serve the Bren development westerly of new MacArthur 1~ Boulevard and southerly of proposed Ford Road extension. This letter is written to assure District No. 5 that The Irvine Company does not intend to serve the area northerly of the proposed Ford Road extension into the proposed Big Canyon trunk sewer. It is our understanding that this area will be deannexed from District .No. 5 as soon as arrangements are made for» sewer service by the ·Irvine Ranch Water District. · Please note that all other items discussed by ~~. Simpson in the subject letter will be coor.dinated with you by David Kaylor of The Irvine Company. If .you require any furth~r assistance on this matter, please feel free to contact me. JP/pmc Very truly yours, l ,·j ~ 4 / // / ~<: 2:(.4?-tr~-l~. ay Panchal Senior Engineer cc: Donald Simpson -Sanitation District No. 5 M. Anderson -Raub, Bein and Frost W. Eppinger -Irvine Ranch Water Distri~t navid A. Knylor : -C- ,. II BO ARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanit at ion Districts of Ora nge Cou nty , Californ ia DISTRICT No . 5 P. 0 . Box 5175 10844 Ellis Avenue Foun ta in Val ley, Cal if., 92708 AGENDA (1) Roll Call Special Meeting Se ptember 5~ 1968 -4 :00 p .m. (2 ) Appointment of Chairman pro tern , i f necessary (3 ) Report of the General Manager (4) Report of the General Counsel (5 ) Consideration of Staff Report on Re -Appraisal of the Di strict's Current Connectio n -Charge Schedule . See page "A" (6 ) Progress report on the arrangements authorized by the Boa r d on April 12th , f or the construction of the Big Canyon Sewer . See pages "B" and "C" (7) Con sideration of Written Interim Report of the Engineer regarding increasing the capacity of the J amboree Pumping Station . See page 11 D11 (8 ) Consideration of motion to adjourn COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 i 10944 ELLIS AVENUE, P.O. BOX 5175, FOUNTAIN VALl.EY, CALIFORNIA, 92708 I ' ! \._I I I' Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 5 .of Orange County August 29, 1968 · Subject: Report on Re-Appraisal of District's 9urrent Connection ~harge Schedule The Directors will recall that at the April 11, 1968 adjourned Board meeting, the staff was instructed to "make a complete study of the financing required to construct facilities as· outlined by the District's Engineer and recommend a connection charge schedule that .will enable the District to finance its capital improvements without inereasing the ad valorem tax rate". Statement of Problem and Background Information The Board's request for this report was caused primarily by an inquiry from the Irvine Company regarding the financing of three additional trunk sewers (Big Canyon Trunk, Los Trances Trunk and Buck Gully Trunk) which were not included in the 1964 ultimate facilities plan. After consideration of the matter, the Board approved prepa- ration of· an agreement with the Company whereby the Company will construct the Big Canyon Sewer and be reimbursed by the District from funds collected for connection charges within the area tributary to the sewer. The 1964 engineering report by Donald c. Simpson, which led to the adoption of the Ultimate Facilities Plan proposed in the report, ·. listed total ultimate needed facilities in the District and estimated· the District No. 5 share of their cost at $2,366,000 (District No. 6 would contribute a minor amount). · · Of these projects, all of those listed to be constructed before 1970 have been completed at a total cost of $829,000. Of this sum,. $400,000 has been borrowed from the Irvine Company, $340,8oo·aerived A-1 ! • . 1 Board of Dir~c~ors \.,.I from District's tax revenue and $88,200 from District's connection charges. Shortly after Mr. Simpson's report was submitted, a financing report and plan.by Bartle Wells and Associates was submitted and· approved. This plan contem~lated financing the entire $2,366,000 plan from connection charges at $120 per dwelling unit. An escalation of this charge, by $5 per year, was also recommended but not used in the financing projections. Since the 1964 Simpson report was adopted, . two modifications have been made which have increased the total project co·sts. In addition, the cost of the portion of the work now completed is now known. From these two factors we can arrive at a r~asonable estimate that the total remaining project costs to ultimate saturation, including the above-described three new sewers, will be slightly more ·than $3 million. · In addition to connection charges, the Bartle Wells report also recommended an initial annexation fee of $250 per acre for outside areas desiring to use the District's system. However, funds raised . in this manner were recommended to be applied to treatment plant .expansion. Financing Projection~ Ordinance No. 502 (July, 1965) of the District establishes the 'bove connection charges. At the time of adoption of the Ordinance, considerable study was given to the recommendation of Bartle Wells that the charge be escalated on a regular basis. However, this excalation plan was not incorporated in the Ordinance. The staff estimates, as matters now stand, that the $3 million remaining project cost plus the $400,000 obligation to the Irvine Company will exceed by $1,280,000 the remaining amount to be ultimately collected from the present connection fees. The staff has also calculated that to finance all facilities · by connection charges, as contemplated, would require that the connection charge be increased.to an average of $200 each over the next 20 years. This calculation is based on using $150,000 of ad valorem tax funds now available, plus $100,000 available from the Facilities Revolving Fund in which connection charges are deposited. Alternate Financin~ As pointed out at the April 11 m~eting the District, on the assumption that other standard financing methods such as a bond issue A-2 \._) .. -....,,,; ·~ Board of Directors are eliminated from consideration, has the choice of either (1) Increasing the connection charges to an average of $200 over the next 20 years (2) Raising the additional $1,280,000 required by ad valorem tax-over the period with the connection charge remaining at the present figure or (3) A combination of a lesser increase in the connection charge and some ad valorem tax financing. If Alternate No. 2 is selected, it is extimated that, on the basis of an annual increase of assessed valuations of 7%, the average ad valorem tax necessary to be levied to provide the sum of $1,280,000 in 20 years will be approximately 2.li. It is impossible to state at this time whether this rate will result in an over-all increase in ·the District's tax rate, which is 27 .0¢ for 1968-69. Ho~Jever, it appears probable that such an increase will not be necessary since the present and past District budgets have included funds from general taxation for capital outlay projects. If Alternate No. 3 is ·selected, the tax rate for capital outlay . will, of course, be less than the estimated 2.1¢ under Alternate No. 2, depending upon what increase in connection charges is finally established. 4.~~r?/av General.Manager A-3 ..... . .. .: . SHU I-RM AN SIMPSON consulting civil engineers URBANUS SQUARE MacARTHUR BLVD. AT FORD ROAD CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 (714) 644-0563 A~gust 20, 1968 County Sanitation District No. 5 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Attention: Mr. Fred A. Harper, General Man~g~r We have reviewed the preliminary plans for the Big Canyon trunk sewer, and have resolved most of the technical questions with the design engineer. However, a number of other items have been discussed that are outside the ·technical engineering area which I feel should be resolved prior to the start· of construction. These items are as follows: 1. The trunk will not have capacity to serve the portion of District 5 lying northerly of proposed Ford Road and westerly of MacArthur Boulevard. Previous discussions have indicated that this area will be either de-annexed from Di.strict No. 5 or served by Irvine Ranch Water District under contract with District No. 5. Perhaps it would be well to have an assurance from the Irvine Company that this area will not be connected to the B~g Canyon trunk. 2. How will the costs of the sewer construction to be included in the reimbursement agreement be determined? I understand that the developer either has obtained or is in the process of obtaining bids for the work. Will this be satisfactory, or will the District require formal type of bid advertising and award? Will the reimbursable cost of the· construction include e~gineeri~g des~gn, plan check, and inspection? . 3. Under what conditions can the sewer be constructed prior to granting of the necessary easements and execution of a reimbursement ~greement. 4. In the future, when the adjacent areas are developed, it appears that grading will be required over the sewer. It rn~ght·be well to provide for this future gradi~g in ·the grant of easement. B -1 - \...,) . 5. The construction of an access road will result in cut slopes outside the proposed 15-foot easement. Provisions for the maintenance of these slopes and the clearing of possible slide material from the access· road should be included in the grant of easement. 6. It will undoubtedly take some time to formalize the reimburs·ement agreement and to grant all the necessary easernents. Until "these steps are completed, I assume the sewer cannot be ·accepted by the District and, therefore, Bren's Tract would be served on an interim basis by, in effect, a private sewer. All parties involved should be aware of this condition since this m~ght not be acceptable. ... Please let me know if you want my help in resolvi~g or clarifyi~g any of the.above items. DCS:c cc-J.Panchal, Irvine Co. cc-M.Anderson, Raub,Bein,Frost B-2 - SHUIRMAN-SIMPSON .d-n~ai~ Donald c. Simpson • THE IRVINE. COMPANY IRVINE. CALl,.ORNIA 921564 71•·5~.4-0120 August 22, 1968 Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Att~ntion Mr. Fred Harper, General Manager Dea.r Mr. Harper: Reference is made to the letter dated August 20, 1968 from Don Simpson on the review of preliminary plans for the Big Canyon trunk sewer to serve the Bren development westerly of new MacArthur Boulevard and southerly of proposed Ford Road extension. This letter is written to assure District No. 5 that The Irvine Company does not· intend to serve the area northerly of the proposed Ford Road extension into the proposed Big Canyon trunk sewer. It is our understanding that this area will be deannexed from District .No. 5 as soon as arrangements are made for-sewer service by the ·Irvine Ranch Water District. · Please note that all other items discussed by ~~. Simpson in the subject letter will be coordinated with you by David Kaylor of The Irvine Company. If you require any further assistance on this matter, please feel free to contact me. JP/pmc Very truly yours, .,··i . A / // / ~-<-: 2~ H'--tr~..?~ ay Panchal Senior Engineer cc: Donald ·Simpson -Sanitation District No. ·5 M. Anderson -Raub, Bein and Frost W. Eppinger -Irvine Ranch Water District David A. Kaylor -C- f \,,.) .. SHUIRMAN -SIMPSON consulting civil engineers URBANUS SQUARE MacARTHUR BLVD. AT FORD ROAD CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 (714) 6«.0563 A~gust 30, 1968 Fred A. Harper, General Manager County Sanitation District No. 5 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California In accordance with the District's previous authorization, we have proceeded with a Study of the Jamboree Pumping Station. The purpose of the Study is to determine whether any improvements in the Station will be required in order to handle the expected flows for the next 5 years. . Although the Study has not been completed, the projected flows indicate that the capacity of the Station must be increased within the next year. The improvement required will consist of new equipment. Major structural changes will not be required. It is expected that the new equipment will provide sufficient capacity to meet the projected needs of 1973. After that date, it may be necessary to construct an entirely new Station. The cost of the interim equipment improvements will probably not exceed $20,000. The Study should be completed and delivered within the next 30 days. SHUIRMAN-SIMPSON 4-~1~~~-Donald c. Simpson DCS:c -D- August 8, 1968 TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 RE: Special Meeting -4:30 p.m., Monday, August 12, 1968 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California Gentlemen: I am calling a special meeting of the District No. 7 Board of Directors at the above hour and date. The purpose of this meeting is to reconsider the actions taken by the Board on July 10th relative to the proposed annexation of Tract No. 6628 to the District, and to further consider the communication from Toups Engineering, Inco, dated July 19, 1968, concerning this proposed annexationo The Board will also consider the Report on the District's Annexation-Fee Policy and Procedures, submitted by Boyle Engineering, dated July 25, 19680 /s/ Clifton C. Miller Chairman -Excerpt from minutes -7-10-68 DISTRICT 7 Report of the engineers on the effect of proposed annexa- tions on the District's sewera e s stem Tract 2 20 acres· Ludlow, less than 5.0 acres) Mr. Conrad Hohener of Boyle Engineering submitted a written evaluation report relative to the effect of three proposed annexations on the District's sewerage system. Mr. Hohener stated that the small volume of waste water to be discharged from the proposed annexations (totaling less than 30 acres) would not have a measurable detrimental effect on the District's trunk sewer system capacity; however, Mr. Hohener cautioned that petitions for sizeable annexations should be discouraged as the present trunk sewer facilities were not designed to serve large areas outside the District. Following a lengthy discussion concerning the proposed annexations and the District's limited ability to continue to annex additional areas due to the District's present trunk sewer capacity, the following actions were taken: A. Annexation of Tract No. 6628 (20 acres) Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the annexation be approved in principle, subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment to the District of annexation fees in the amount of $250 per acre 2. That the area be annexed to the 7th Sewer Mainte.nance District 3. That the area be withdrawn from the Irvine Ranch Water District, because it appears · that the Water District will not provide water or sewerage facilities to the area, as recommended by the District's engineers B. O'Sullivan Annexation (3.66 acres) Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the annexation be approved in principle, subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment to the District of annexation fees in the amount of $250 per acre 2. That the area be annexed to the 70th Sewer Maintenance District -13-(over) 7-10-68 C. Ludlow Annexation (Less than 5.0 acres) Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the annexation be approved in principle, subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment to the District of annexation fees in the amount of $250 per acre 2. That the area be annexed to the 7th Sewer Maintenance District D. Moved 2 seconded and duly carried: That additional annexations to the District be discouraged until such time as sufficient hydraulic capacity is peTmanerttly available to accept the additional flow generated from· areas· outside the Di'strict; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the staff be directed to consult with the Board of Directors prior to making any tentative commitments relative to annexations to the District. -14- TOUPS ENGINEERING, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 1801 N. COLLEGE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA July 19, 1968 Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Attention: Mr. Fred A. Harper, Manager RE: ANNEXATION OF TRACT 6628 Gentlemen: 541-4431 Thank you for ·the prompt action regarding the annexation of Tract 6628 at your last Board meeting. However, the condition of having to de-annex from the Irvine Ranch Water District has presented some new p~oblems. Mr. Jim Peters of Pacesetter Homes and myself met with Mr. Bill Eppinger, Manager of the Irvine Ranch Water District, to discuss this condition of de-annexation. I received from Mr. Eppinger a copy of a letter from the Water District's at- torney regarding the service of area within the Irvine Ranch Water District by the Tustin Water Works Company, a copy of which is enclosed. As pointed out in the letter and as explained by Mr. Eppinger, the problem of de-annexation is that of capac- ity rights in the feeder lines. If this area was to be de-annexed from the Irvine Ranch Water District, at such time that the Tusti~ Water Works Company was using its entire capacity rights through the East Orange County Water District, this subject area could not be served because it is not now included in the total area for which the Tustin Water Works has capacity rights. Further, Mr. Eppinger pointed out that this area is not now in the improvement district through which the Irvine Ranch Water District provides its sewer service and since it would be sewered through Sanitation District No. 7 facilities, there would be no need for it ever to be annexed to the improvement district, thus eliminating the possibility of double taxation to the future homeowners.· SANTA ANA FULLERTON LAGUNA HILLS VENTURA TOUPS ENGINEERING: INC.• CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS• 1801 N. COLLEGE• SANTA ANA. CALIF. Mr. Fred A. Harper -2 -July 19, 1968 Mr. Eppinger will be preseht at your next meeting on July 23 for a different matter, but he indicated he would be available to explain in detail the problems of de-annexing this area from the Irvine Ranch Water District. Therefore, gentlemen we are respectfully requesting that you reconsider the condition of de-annexation at your July 23 meeting. Perhaps at that time after reviewing the matter with Mr. Eppinger, the subject condition might be amended to a "reconunendation that the Local Agency Formation Commission review the.de-annexation at their hearing." We apologize for not having this information available at your last meeting. Perhaps it would have saved us all some valuable time. · Thank you. TOUPS ENGINEERING, INC. JJY~. w. W. Knitz ~ ;£?__...- Vice Pres ide_!f"( · WWK:em cc: Bill Eppinger Klug Development Co. ....... ,. ... MU• '•: •. OA.,.&. RUTAN & TUCKER .JAMES e.~ .. .:·ca,si:t. ·es~··fio~c fllll(\•..., •"' .... S .. [~[G4•RO tit.,.., -.. Clll M::NCLS.. A•C••A!) .t.. C:•JO.,.i1T Ll.0Prt4lRO .a, .. A,.P(~ _,(':.,.N tl .... '-'11~8,.'! • .JD. trr11H-C .. •C~ w. fNUC'-1.. 1108CP T •. •&AOLO C:O;.LCC:" M. CL•111t Ml\,rOCIO 1'1. ::,AM\. • .:P. .;c .... -'· ,.,: ,.., TN').,.A~ 111. DUA' C ATTORN £YS AT LAW POST OF'F'•C£ BOX •976 811 NOqTH BFlOAOWAY -'"'"°'' 11.fUC•C• GA.,.rtN r. 5 .. a .. "(>1SCll{o(Q S ... NTA ,t.N.-..CALIF'O~NIA 92702 171'4) S43 • 94•1 • 835 • :!l 00 .,. \ ~··--~~l!.. W. "· ~·"U.l~AV .IA•('"· V."\t'D( Mlll>BF.•lt • ..... : ., .. At.t•,U•OC:Q f'C..,·f •nat•f t..A•S• C• 'IOICllT C. r:-:>:) JO ..... c. C.ll:MA oa4. JP. e•~t:c D. WAt..&. .&CC April 30, 1968 -.oS AN~t~£!· Ol"J•t;f •r. 53:-B•Nll CF c.a.1rco···· BU•lO .. •C SSO S0Uf'1 F\.C'..,lA Sfqt!T .. •C:• £.YO: !A ,,,.,, ··~"11•:"\•"'60 wa;l.D't' .J. P(~!,:."9 .... : ... cP ~ .... ~=-·--·e• . .1•. J. ff•'=.,.O~AS cc ..... •£a :: ~•llAY r. GO;.OSO• •ooc~ro .. o .. •c_. .... o AO .. At.0 ... .-1111 ... GTO .. STu•AT r. ""'"t.01111' 1.0$ .ANvE:..£5. :.a.:..·l"OR•ii;. g.oo:7 rc"ci:.i.~•u: ·;?:J• oco ~ .. ez co .. .i .. c ... c•!-tY .. .;)NAPC '• •A=1R•S.:"~ JAMCS. t.t••<;•$00f .J('hOt M. Y•P4~( .. t AILLIA .. •.l•t~ 1.AG1,• ...... ,L. C:. 0C'J•C£ su••t lr.10 .. :,55w.;,;."J~ lh.111.C1NG 2l5ZI P.e.~::o ~r •JAl.rNC·A LAuUtt.a .. :1.• -s. :: .... roPN:A 9i:6Sl 1£ .. rP .. O>tE I~·~. ~3~ •• cZO•.) Irvine Ranch Water Distr·ict 3512 Michelson Irvine, California ATTENTION: Mr. William Eppinger General Manager Dear Mr. Eppinger: RECEIVED MAY 3 1968 tR'llNl RJ\Nl;lt Yll'tlFR DIST. This letter is written to the Irvine Ranch Water Dis- trict as a result of the discussion between the Board of Directors and you at the last meeting of the Board. The pur- pose of the letter is to confirm the understanding that was reached at that time that the Irvine Ranch Water District acknowledges that it is the entity responsible for providing water to the area being served by the Tustin Water Works, which area is located in the Irvine Ranch Water District. If at a later date the Tustin Water Works is serving more water within the Irvine.Ranch Water District than it is obtaining from sources other than the East Orange County Water District, ap- propriate arrangements will be entered into between Irvine Ranch Water District and East Orange County Water District, whereby water to be supplied to the ultimate customer will be furnished by Irvine Ranch Water District. Would you please acknowledge.that the contents of this letter are consistent with the understanding reached at that time. Very truly yours, ~-;-;, / '~ '· //-?--c... y • .z. ·frl-.C~. (... -• _a_,,_.,,,·t</~{ Alexander Bowie AB:ct ENGINEERING Iii ENGINEERS o ARCHITECTS 412 SOUTH LYON STREET SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 • TELEPHONE < 714> 547-4471 ADDRESS REPLY TO P.O. BOX 178 July 25, 1968 Boord of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County Post Office Box 5175 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Pursuant to your authorization of April 10, 1968, we hove proceeded with a reappraisal of the annexation fee schedule for the District. We have also prepared a procedure for annexations of territory to the District with a suggested fee for processing costs. In reappraising the annexation fee, the basic philosophies employed in prior studies were generally followed. Briefly enumerated they are: 1. Excluded areas have relinquished rights in all District foci lities, existing and under construction. 2. Additional sewerage facilities required within the annexed areas are to be constructed without cost to existing taxpayers of District. 3. Existing facilities and those under construction will serve the existing District for a specific period of time, and the taxpayers have assumed the obligation and have the obi lity to pay for these facilities without assistance from outside areas. 4. After annexation new areas should be on the same basis as the rest of the District in solving long range future requirements for sewerage facilities. In reassessing the present fee schedule, four methods previously used in exami- nation of the problem were again considered. They are: back taxes, value- appraisal of lands before and after, value-cost by alternative system, and area benefit/ cost. Lands considered most likely to request annexation in the future and which could be integrated into the existing system from an engineering and economic standpoint were analyzed. These lands, for the most part, consist of Lemon Heights, Cowan Heights, Orange Park Acres, Peters Canyon and certain Irvine lands to the southeast of the Browning Subtrunk. Total acreage PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES · Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County July 25, 1968 Page Two involved is approximately 8,800 acres. However, this is not to be m,jscon- strued as recommending acceptance of any of these areas for annexatlon. Due to the limited capacities of the existi'ng trunk facilities, only a limited portion of the study area can be annexed unti I the ultimate system is con- structed. We will comment about this later in the report. As a result of this reappraisal it is our recommendation that the following requirements, of which some are presently in effect, be continued and/or established as conditions to the annexation of territory to the District. 1. Payment of all costs incurred in processing the annexation. 2. Payment to the District the sum of $250. 00 per acre of territory so annexed • 3o That annexed territory be subiect to the terms and conditions of all ordinances pertaining to fees for connection to the District's facilities. 4. The annexed territory shall be annexed into an appropriate sewering agency for the purpose of maintaining and operating the local sewer system including pumping stations and force mains. 5. The local sewerage system serving the annexation area shall be installed and connected to the District's system without expanse to the District. . 6. The territory upon annexation shal I be subiect to al I ad valorum taxes required for the retirement of the existing and future bonds of the District. At the present time approximately 50 percent of the potential connections within the present District are connected to the District's facilities. Because of the large number of connections remaining to be made and the capacity problems in the Gisler-Red Hill Trunk, it is our recommendation that no [arge areas be annexed to the District unti I the ultimate trunk facilities are con- structed. Certain fringe areas contiguous to the District, principally in the Lemon Heights, Cowan Heights, and the westerly section of Orange Park Acres could be annexed without being detrimental to the best interests of lands presently within the District. However, before proceeding too far with any annexation request, the District should evaluate the effect additional sewage wil I have on existing foci lities. 11. . /'j ~_;u .. c!J.~.; e'-/tr,_li-)/. Conrad Hohener, Jr., C.E. 10951 pp 81-2908-00-00 BOYLE ENGINEERING PROCEDURE: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY 10844 Ellis Avenue, Post Office Box 5175 Fountain Valley, California 92708 {714) 540-2910 {714) 962-2411 PROCEDURE AND FEES FOR ANN EXATl.ON OF TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT 1. All requests for annexation MUST be in writing and directed to the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County. 2. Such written request MUST contain the following: {a) The true and correct and complete legal description of the territory for which annexation is requested. TAX Bl LL DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSESSMENT NUMBERS ARE NOT ADEQUATE. (b) The names, addresses and telephone numbers of every owner within said territory and a designation of the portion or the interest owned by each person. {c) The assessed value of each separate parcel of land within the territory having a separate asses~ment, as shown on the lost preceding equalized assessment roll of Orange County. {d) The total number of voters, if any, residing in the territory proposed for annexation. {e) Said written request must request the District to annex said territory. 3. Fees to be paid; when and how: {a) When written request is filed, it must be accompanied by a CASHIER'S CHECK pqyable to County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County in the sum of $325. 00. . Should these processing costs exceed the $325.00 fee, applicants will be requested to deposit the amount of such excess with the District. NO PART of this charge is refundable under any circumstances. (b) The formal petition for annexation is prepared by the District and mailed to applicant for signature with a letter of instructions and a statement of the additional fees. When the applicant signs and returns the formal petition for annexation, it must be accompanied by A CASHIER'S CHECK equal to a fee of $250.00 per acre for each acre to be annexed. This fee is refundable if the annexation fails. NOTE: Al I moneys paid to the District must be by cash, cashier's check, postal or bank money order or certified check. NO PERSONAL CHECKS WI LL BE ACCEPTED. The above fees are sub iect to change. The fee schedule in effect at the time of actual payment of any fee is the one applicable. 4. It is the policy of the District not to accept for annexation any irregularly shaped territory which consists of subdivisions or proposed subdivisions where isolated parcels of property or lots are excluded from or are not included within the territory to be annexed. 5. It is es~ential to allow 60 days from the time formal petition is signed and fees are paid. Positively no use of District sewer lines until after date of hearing. ,;; .. TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS DISTRICT NO. 7 FROM:. Fred A. Harper, General Manager RE: Proposed Annexation -Tract No. 6628 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. O. BOX 5175 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 92708 The following information has been compiled from a communication from our General Counsel, dated August 7th, and from a report to the Board regarding annexations, submitted by Conrad Hohener of Boyle Engineering, dated July 10th: General Counsel · "First--if the area is required to de-annex from the Irvine Ranch Water District, it will not, according to the opinion of the County Counsel, carry with it the obligation to pay the bonds of the Irvine Ranch Water District, which obligation it is now subject to. This is a radical difference from the operation of a de-annexation in connection with our own type of sanitation district where a de-annexed portion does carry the bonded liability obligation as of the date of the de-annexation. Accordingly, it does not appear that it will be necessary to require the de-annexation by the Irvine Ranch Water District of this parcel in order to.avoid double taxation. In other words, it appears that by remaining in ·the Irvine Ranch Water District the area seeking to be annexed will not be incurring double taxation for similar services. "The other point of concern is that the board has already adopted a resolution with the de-annexation as a condition to the acceptance by the district. This is ordinarily a prerogative of the LAFC organization, and usually the rights of a district as to approving the annexation are limited to the charges which are applic- able to. the area to be annexed. However, the recommendation for annexation with the de-annexation from the water district has gone forward to the LAFC, and I am informed that they will meet sometime. in the day before our meeting on August 14. Accordingly, they may act and disregard our condition requiring the de-annexation from the water district. If this is true, it may obviate the problem. If they do not act or they do continue this condition to the annexation at our request, then the matter will be before the ·board at the Wednesday night meeting. "The conclusion I would reach is that there is no legal obligation or obstacle to proceeding with the apnexation. I have some reservations about the ability of our.districts to add a condition to annexations requiring the de-annexation from other -. ~- districts of which the property to be annexed is a part. It does appear that as a matter of policy the board should adopt a program concerning what property may or may not be annexed and when it can or cannot be done, bearing in mind the capacities which most direc- tors are quite concerned about. It appears that the board members rightfully do not want to annex any property which would preclude the development of any property now within the territorial limits of the district by reason of a lack of capacity to transport and dispose of the sewage being generated within the district as it now exists. This, of course, is an engineering determination, but I am sure that the board members are concerned about it." Boyle Engineering "Tentative Tract No. 6628 Annexation" "This is a 20-acre parcel at the southeast corner of Irvine and Browning Avenues to be developed into e1 single family residential lots by Pacesetter Homes Incorporated. The tract will connect to the Browning subtrunk which has adequate capacity to serve the property providing it is developed as proposed. The effect the additional flow from this tract will have on the Gisler-Red Hill trunk will be minimal in relation to the total capacity problem as recently reported on by our office. "O'Sullivan Annexation" " Ludlow Annexation" "It is our opinion that the above three proposed annexations to the district will not be detrimental to the best interests of the lands presently within the district and we recommend the Board give con- sideration to the requests for annexation. "Regarding the -annexation fee, we are about to complete the annexation report and from our research and calculations it appears a fee of approximately $250 per acre will be recommended to the Board. You may wish to use this figure in· lieu of the present $215 per acre if any or all of the above annexations are approved. A final accounting can be made with the landowners if the new fee varies from $250." · · II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts P. 0 . Box 517 5 of Orange County, Ca liforn ia 10844 Ell is Avenu e Founta in Va ll ey, C alif., 92708 (1) (2 ) (3 ) ( L~) (5 ) (6 ) (7) DISTRICT No. AGE ND A Special Meeting Ro ll Ca ll Ap p o intment of Chai r man p r o te rn, i f necessary Report of the General Manager Report of t h e Ge n eral Co unsel Reconsideration of act i ons taken July 10th re l ative to proposed Annexation No . 17 (Tract No . 6628 ) to the District ; and further consideration of the communication dated July 19 , 1968, from Toups Engineering , Inc ., con- cernin g this proposed annexation Consideration of Report on District 's Annexation-Fee Policy and Procedures , submitted by Boyle Engineering , dated July 25, 1968 Consideration of motion to adjourn II MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California JOINli BOARDS REGULAR MEE TING Wednesday, August 14, 1968 7:30 p .m. P. 0. Box 5 175 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Va lley, Calif., 92708 T olephones: Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 August 9, 1968 The following is a brief explanation of the more important non- routine items which appear on the enclosed agenda and which are not otherwise se l f-explanatory. Warrant lists are not attached to the agenda since they are made up immediat ely preceding the meeting but will appear in the complete agenda available at the meeting. Joint Boards Nos . 16, 17 and 18 -REPORT OF EXECUTIVE AND BUILDING COMMITTEES AND CONSIDERATION OF ACTIONS RECOMMENDED : The Executive Committee met in joint session with the Building Committee during the afternoon and evening of July 23 and considered recommendations on Joint Board business and the individual District budgets . Director Gomez also met with the Committees as a guest. A complete report of the meeting, including the recommendations adopted, is enclosed . Item No. 17 is consideration of action on the recommendation of the Building Committee relative to the awa rd of a contract for alterations to the Adminstration office building. Item No . 18 is consideration of action on the recommendation of the Executive Committee concerning employment of a consultant to study and report on the subject of uniform industrial waste charges. The Executive Committee, as a whole, did not take action on the individual District Budgets since this is not a Joint Board matter (see Item No . 20). No . 19 -PRICE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN ALTERNATES ON CONTRACT NO . P2-8-3 (ENCLOSURES-PHASE II AND OPERATORS' BUILDING): In accordance with previous Board action, bids for this job will be received on August 2 9 . As recommended by the Building Committee, the bidders will be asked to submit quotations for either or both "tilt -up 11 and frame and plaster construction of the Operators' Building portion of the job in order that the Boards may determine if the latter is suf- ficiently lower in price to justify awarding a contract on this basis. Th e design engineers, John Carollo Engineers, have submitted a l etter dated August 5 ~copy included in agenda material) recommending that if the "tilt -up' construction is more than $3900 greater than the frame construction, the award should be made on the basis of the latter type of construction . In order to remove any possibility of an allegation that the award was made to favor one bidder over another, it is r ecommended that the engineer 's l etter be received and filed at this time and action taken to establish the $3900 price diffe rential as a basis of award. . I _ .. • I • • t"' f .. ~-· .a ""'""' .. J.. • • No . 20 -REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ON INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT BUDGETS FOR 1 968-69: On August 2, recommended 1968-69 budgets were mailed to the Directors concerned, together with a memorandum from the Director of Finance on this subject. As mentioned previously, these budgets were also reviewed by the respective District's Chairmen at the July 23 Executive Committee meeting. Although formal considera - tion of adoption of the individual budgets will be found as· later items on the agenda (Nos . 31, 35, 39, 43, 48, 51, 55 and 64), to • expedite matters the staff will be prepared to go into greater detail or to answer questions on the budgets following the report of the Director of Finance . No. 21 -INSPECTION SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF OCEAN OUTFALL NO. 2: It will be recalled that at the J uly Board me eting the General Counsel was directed to prepare an agreement with John Carollo Engineers for these servi ces in accordance with the Engineer's proposal approved at that time. This agreement has now been prepared and adoption of the resolution, under this item, authorizing exe- cution of the agreement is recommended . No. 22 -SALE OF SURPLUS DIGESTER GAS: As previously authorized by the Boards, bids have been solicited for purchase of surplus digester gas and will be opened on Monday, August 12 . If a satisfactory bid or bids are received, a written recommendation for award of this sa l e wil l be made at the time of the meeting . No. 23 -CHANGE ORDER NO . 2, JOB NO. P2 -ll: Work on this Plant job, Headworks "C" at Plant No. 2, is progressing satisfactorily and should be completed by November . As usual in a job of this magnitude the desirability of a number of small changes in the work has become evident, particularly as related to mechanical and electrical instal- lations . The recommended changes and the contractor's agreed on additional cost thereof are set forth in the recommended formal change order, attached to the agenda material, and totaling $1,027.88. It will be noted that three of the additional cost items, totaling approximtely $290, are being recommended to simplify and reduce the ~ cost of the work on Job No. P2 -8 -3 (see Item No . 19), which will commence immediately following completion of the headworks job and will be located adjacent thereto . No. 24 -ESTABLISHMENT OF PREVAILING WAGE RATES: This i s the customary resolution adopted by each District after changes in the construction industry wage rates have been negotiated between the unions and the contractors . By adopting this resolution, the pre- vailing wage rates established are forma lly placed on file in the Secretary's office for reference in advertising for bids for con- struction work. No. 25 -CONSTRUCTION GRANT -OCEAN OUTFALL NO . 2: As reported a number of times previously, the staff has been quite active in expediting consideration by the Federal water Pollution Control Administration 1 s office in San Francisco of the application for a 33% Public Law 84 -660 grant for this project. Although a definite .. -2 - .. •• ,. I ... ~ • • .. • . .-~1 Pl - grant offer has not yet been made and probably will not be made for several weeks, we have asked for permission to advertise for bids for the project prior to grant approva l in order that the work can commence on schedule. Attached to the agenda material under this item is a copy of a letter dated August 5 from the FWPCA granting our request and making certain other stipulations which are self- explanatory. We consider this approval, although qualified by the statement that there is no commitment thereby made that a grant will be forthcoming, to be a favorable action by the Federal authorities. In accordance with previous action taken by the Boards, I have established a bid date and authorized the advertising of the project for bid. However to make the record absolutely clear , it is recom- mended that the Boards ratify my action which calls for bids to be o p ene d at the Joint Board meeting on October 9. No . 26 -AUTHORI ZATION FOR ATTENDANCE OF STAFF MEMBER AT MEETING OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERATION: The 4lst annual meeting of the Water Pollution Control Federation will be held in Chicago from -September 22 through 27. The Federation is the only national association of persons and firms specializing in the design and construction of waste treatment and disposal facilities and in water pollution control activities. This meeting brings toge ther all of these people at one time for the exchange of information and the presentation of technica l papers . It has been customary, in the past, to authorize attendance at these national meetings by one or more of our personnel. It is recommended that the General Manager be autho- rized to designate one staff member to attend. District No. 8 • - No. 4 7 -RECEIVE AND FILE FINANCIAL REPORT: At the June 12 Joint Board meeting this report, by our independent auditors, covering the first nine months of the last fiscal year was received and filed by the other Districts. A similar action by District No. 8 is recom- mended at this meeting. District No. 11 • ~· No. 54 -TENTATIVE ADJOURNMENT TO AUGUST 28: Chairman Matney has suggested that it would be appropriate to hold an adjourned meeting of the Board later in the month of August, primarily to discuss the proposed service to the Sunset Beach area. If satisfactory with the Board members, the adjourned meeting is recommended to be held at 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 28, in the District's office. District No. 3 • Nos . 56 and 57 -POSSIBLE SERVICE FOR SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 (SEAL BEACH AREA): It was reported at the July meeting that in connection with the recently submitted Master Plan of Trunk Sewer Facilities for District No. 3, the staff has been contacted by the staff of Sani- tation District No. 4 regarding the possibility of sewerage service • I -3- .. - • for that District through the facilities of District No. 3 and that a l etter on this subject would be forthcoming. This l etter has now been received and a copy is inc l uded with the agenda material. In a subsequent conference with Messrs . Risner and Stratford of Sanitation District No . 4, it was suggested that a brief engineer - ing study should be made to determine the effect of the additional service area on the proposed ultimate fac i lities of District No . 3 and that it would be appropriate if our District engineers made the study with arrangements made for their fee to be reimbursed by District No. 4. Accordingly, we asked Boyle Engineering of Santa Ana to submit a proposal for this study, a copy of which is also included with the agenda material. The motions appearing on the formal agenda under these two item numbers are recommended for adoption in order to get this feasibility study under way. Following submission of the recommended engineering study, the staff plans to submit to the Board a supplemental report covering the economic aspects of possib l e service to the District No . 4 area . No. 59 -REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL ON LAWSUIT REGARDING MANHOLE COATING FAILURES: The General Counsel advises that he wishes to submit a status report on the recent lawsuit filed by the District against various defendants involved in the installation of the protective coating in the manholes in the 1958 bond issue construction work. As reported on when this lawsuit was authorized, this pro - tective coating, which bore a 5-year guarantee, failed in many instances to accomplish its purpose. • District No . 7 r No . 65 -ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO . 7: A formal assignment document has been received from the Contractor Assessment District No. 7, assigning the assessments, warrants, monies, bonds, and payments, to Gross & Company, Inc . This is a standard action in assessment proceedings. No. 66 -REQUEST OF COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MASTER PLAN SEWER IN SMALLEY ROAD: The Costa Mesa Sanitary District has formally requested that District No . 7 undertake the construction of the proposed Master Plan sewer in Smal l ey Road between the San Diego Freeway and Sunflower Avenue . This sewer is necessary at this time to serve a proposed tract development on the west side of Smalley Road at Sunflower Avenue. The Sanitary District has offered to finance the construction of this facility from the connection charge funds accumulated in their County Sanitation District No . 7 Main Trunk Fund. At the present time, approximately $28,000 is avail- able. In addition, this proposed development of 300 homes will generate another $15,000 in connection charges . The engineer's preliminary estimate for construction is $42,864.50. It is the staff's recommendation that the project be approved, and that the General Manager be authorized to notify the Sanitary District of the Board's acceptance of their offer to finance this ._.. I .. . ·. ,,,,;,. '• -4- • .. . .. ---- .. .. • --I '"i • 'I .. !II facility; and that the staff be author i zed to work with the Sanitary District staff c o ncerning the financing arrangements. The following is a tentative time schedule for the construction of the Smalley Road Subtrunk Sewer: Au g ust 14 Sept. 24 Board approval of request of Costa Mesa Sanitary District for construction of the facility; accept proposal of the engineer, for engineering design services • .... Approve plans and specifications and authorize advertising for bids .... - • .. .. . ... • -, • .. October 11 October 14 Late Dec. Open bids Award contract for construction (60 days to be allowed for completion) Completion of the project • • , No. 67 -CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL OF DONALD E. STEVENS, INC., CIVIL ENGINEER, FOR ENGINE ER ING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WI TH THE PROPOSED SMALLEY ROAD SUBTRUNK SEWER: In co nnection with the Costa Mesa Sanitary District's request for the immediate construction of the Smalley Road Subtrunk Sewer, the staff has asked for a proposal from Donald E. Stevens, Inc., Costa Mesa, to provide the necessary engineering services. A copy of this proposal is included in the agenda . It is the staff 1 s re commendation that the proposal be accepted . No. 68 -AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM DEED IN EXCHANGE FOR GRANT OF EASEMENT: The General Counsel recommends the quitclaiming of an existing easement in exchange for a new easement, at no cost to the District, in co nnection with the construction of sanitary sewers in Assessment District No. 7. l "I. I if . .. -5- Fred A. Harper General Manager • .. - - • .. II MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County San itation Distr icts of Orange County, California JOINT BOARDS P. 0 . Box 5175 10844 ~llis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 540-2910 962 -2411 August 14, 1968 Joint Boards REGULAR MEET I NG Wednesday, August 14, 1968 7 :30 p.m. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT No . 22 -SALE OF DIGESTER SLUDGE GAS: Earlier in the year the Executive Committee studied the question of whether it would be preferable for the Districts to u tilize surplus digester gas for operating our gas turbine driven generator at Plant No. 2 or to sell this surplus gas, assuming that a buyer could be found. It was the conclusion of the Committee that in order to make an economic comparison, an operating test should be made, using the gas in the turbine under typical conditions and, concurrently, to advertise for proposals for sale of the surplus gas. In t h is way the actual power savings by use of the turbine generator facilities could be compared with revenue obta i nable from sale of the gas. This study has now been completed with the opening of bids (authoriz ed by the Boards on Apri l 10, 1968) for the surplus gas on August 1 2. The bidding specifications were mailed to numerous firms but on l y one firm, G. E'. Kadane & Sons, which operates an oil pro - duction fie l d adjacent to Plant No. 2, chose to submit a proposal . The o ffer from G. E. Kadane & Sons pro~oses to purchase one million standard cubic feet of gas per day at $0.09 per thousand cubic feet, with a minimum payment of $1350 per month in the event thei r require - ments are reduced in any one month. (The Company reports that, based on past requirements their usage should average about one million cubic feet, or more, per day.) The sales contract, if entered into, would be for a three -year period with an option on the part of the purchaser to renew for an additiona l two years . The results o f the operating tests indicate that the new power savi ngs to the Districts by operating the turbine generator would be approximately $50 per day, with a maximum of $65 per day assuming a nearly leve l l oad on the generator and no increase in maintenance from continuous use of the equipment. .... '.,{j , . ,. .J The revenue to be obtained by sale of one million cubic feet per day of gas , less Di s tricts' compression costs, would be $73.50 per day under the Kadane proposal. This will fluctuate depending on their requirements. On the basis of the above comparison and on the fact that sale of the gas would allow the Districts to keep the turbine generator on a standby basis for emergencies, it appears preferable to sell the surplus g as as proposed . Accordingly, the motion appear- ing on the formal agenda authorizing execution of an agreement with G. E. Kadar.e & Sons, is recommended. I if .. ·~ I I ... • " .-Fred A. Harper .•r "' "ii General Manager • I .. • II .. .. • ~. -• " ~ ... I I •I ~ I I " ., "" .._ ""' • f -2 - p